State v. Berthiaume, 157 A.3d 681

Background

Defendant Toby Berthiaume was convicted of first‑degree burglary for allegedly remaining unlawfully in an elderly victim's home and inflicting physical injury during a larceny.
Witness Navarro‑Gilmore observed two suspicious white men walking together near the victim’s home shortly after the burglary, each apparently carrying a small flat‑screen TV like one later pawned by defendant.
The victim was found with a bloody knee, chipped tooth, a bruised face, a broken dining‑room chandelier, a cut telephone cord, and missing items (TV and ring). Defendant later pawned the TV and ring in Springfield.
The state originally sought accessorial liability and conspiracy instructions but amended the information and proceeded only on a principal‑perpetrator theory; the jury was not instructed on accessorial liability.
The trial court instructed the jury that defendant must have "knowingly or recklessly inflicted bodily injury" to sustain first‑degree burglary; "intentionally" had been removed from the instruction.
Judge Keller concurs with part of the majority but dissents as to sufficiency for first‑degree burglary, arguing the evidence does not reasonably support that defendant (as opposed to the unidentified companion) inflicted the victim’s injuries and that conviction should be reduced to third‑degree burglary.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency to prove first‑degree burglary (infliction element)	Evidence of victim’s injuries, proximity in time/address, witness seeing defendant with stolen TV, and pawned items supports inference defendant inflicted injuries	Presence of a second suspicious man, lack of direct ID, no physical/perpetrator forensic evidence, and no testimony identifying which man assaulted victim makes infliction finding speculative	Dissent: evidence insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that defendant personally knowingly or recklessly inflicted injury; would reduce to third‑degree burglary
Accessorial liability theory	State initially requested accessorial instruction based on two‑person observation	State amended information and dropped accessorial theory; defendant argues jury was never instructed on it	Court limited to principal‑perpetrator theory because jury not instructed on accessory liability; state cannot rely on alternative theory on appeal
Jury instruction wording (removed "intentionally")	State/majority treat "knowingly or recklessly inflicted" as adequate to prove aggravating element	Dissent stresses penal statutes strict construction and that proof must show defendant personally inflicted injury knowingly or recklessly	Instruction required proof defendant "knowingly or recklessly inflicted" bodily injury; dissent argues evidence does not meet that standard
Remedy if first‑degree conviction fails	State seeks affirmance of first‑degree verdict	Defendant seeks acquittal or conviction on lesser included offense	Dissent would modify judgment to third‑degree burglary and remand for resentencing because jury was properly charged on that lesser offense

Key Cases Cited

State v. Allen, 289 Conn. 550 (Conn. 2008) (discusses conviction allowed where defendant charged as accessory to multiple crimes)
State v. Parham, 174 Conn. 500 (Conn. 1978) (accessory instruction permitted conviction as principal or aider/abettor where evidence supported either theory)
State v. Cote, 136 Conn. App. 427 (Conn. App. 2012) (circumstantial proximity and possession of stolen goods supported inference of joint burglary)
State v. Gemmell, 151 Conn. App. 590 (Conn. App. 2014) (victim identified attacker; used to contrast cases where perpetrator ID is lacking)
State v. Clark, 48 Conn. App. 812 (Conn. App. 1998) (victim identification of defendant supported assault/burglary convictions)
Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1948) (appellate review limited to theories and evidence as tried in trial court)
State v. Rivera, 169 Conn. App. 343 (Conn. App. 2016) (discusses limits on permissible inferences versus speculation in sufficiency review)
State v. Saracino, 178 Conn. 416 (Conn. 1979) (court may modify judgment to lesser included offense if evidence supports it)