State v. Adams, 163 Conn.App. 810

On Sept. 23, 2006, Marshalls loss-prevention officers watched surveillance footage of a man (defendant Lorenzo Adams) selecting items in the store and gathering them in a corner; footage began with him already inside the men’s section.
Surveillance showed the defendant later carrying a plastic bag full of items toward the exit; he was confronted by two loss-prevention officers, struggled with them, dropped the bag, and left the store.
Police located and arrested the defendant shortly thereafter; loss-prevention officers identified him from the surveillance footage but did not testify at trial.
The state charged robbery (third degree), attempt to commit larceny (originally fourth degree, later amended to sixth degree), and breach of peace (second degree); defendant was tried to the court and convicted of attempted larceny (6th) and breach of peace (2nd) but acquitted of robbery.
At trial, the state introduced the surveillance footage and police testimony; police testified loss-prevention officers reported the recovered goods’ total was about $979, but there was no testimony directly identifying the bag’s contents as Marshalls’ merchandise.

Issue	State's Argument	Adams' Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempt to commit larceny (6th)	Footage of selecting items, gathering them, carrying a full bag to exit, and fleeing supports inference the bag contained Marshalls’ merchandise and a guilty intent	No proof the bag’s contents belonged to Marshalls or that the specific jacket alleged was taken; footage begins after entry and does not show placing store items into the bag	Reversed: insufficient evidence—state failed to prove ownership of items beyond reasonable doubt
Sufficiency of evidence for breach of peace (2nd)	Video and officer testimony show a physical scuffle and shove interrupting lawful activity (loss-prevention duties), supporting intent to alarm or impede	Footage is discrete stills, not continuous, so it cannot reliably show fighting or tumultuous behavior or requisite intent	Affirmed: footage and testimony sufficiently show fighting/tumultuous behavior and intent to impede lawful activity

State v. Crenshaw, 313 Conn. 69 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Stephen J. R., 309 Conn. 586 (inferred facts may be considered if reasonably logical)
State v. Saez, 115 Conn. App. 295 (larceny by shoplifting requires proof property was goods exposed for sale in the store)
State v. Jennings, 125 Conn. App. 801 (police testimony about value held sufficient to prove value element)
State v. Lokting, 128 Conn. App. 234 (elements of larceny in the sixth degree: wrongful taking and value)
State v. Ragin, 106 Conn. App. 445 (elements required to prove breach of peace under § 53a-181)
State v. Wolff, 237 Conn. 633 (intent element for breach of peace—disturbance or impediment of lawful activity)
In re Jeremy M., 100 Conn. App. 436 (construction of ‘‘fighting or violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior’’)
State v. Lo Sacco, 12 Conn. App. 481 (interpretation of threatening/tumultuous language under noscitur a sociis)