345 Conn. 354
Conn.2022Background
- Defendant Jovanne Brown agreed to assist in a drug transaction for $2,000; Willard Hargrove (H) drove him to meet the seller (victim Michael Watkins) and told Brown there was a gun and his role was to "make sure that nothing happened."
- The victim entered Hargrove’s car, discussed the deal, left, and later re-entered the car; Hargrove left briefly to retrieve marijuana from the victim’s car and returned with the drugs.
- While seated behind the victim, Brown shot the victim five times; the victim died, Brown was wounded, and Hargrove and Brown left the scene with the marijuana.
- Brown initially denied involvement to police, then later admitted he shot the victim and told police "I guess so" when asked if the intent was to rob the victim.
- Jury convicted Brown of felony murder (predicate: robbery in the third degree), intentional manslaughter (with firearm) (later vacated to avoid multiple homicide convictions for the same act), and carrying a pistol without a permit; Brown appealed claiming insufficient evidence for felony murder and prosecutorial improprieties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was there sufficient evidence that Brown intended to commit a larceny? | Circumstantial evidence (role as "muscle," lack of money in Hargrove's car, Brown's admission "I guess so," departure with marijuana) supports intent to deprive victim of the drugs. | Brown only intended to sit in the car to "make sure nothing happened" and shot in self-defense; no direct proof of intent to steal. | Held: Sufficient — jury could infer intent to deprive the victim of the marijuana from the totality of circumstances. |
| 2) Was there sufficient proof that Brown committed larceny when he did not physically take the marijuana? | State alleged Brown obtained/withheld the property; robbery statute requires larceny by taking, obtaining, or withholding. | Brown argues only Hargrove physically took the marijuana and the jury was not instructed on accessorial liability. | Held: Sufficient under the statutory term "withholds." Jury reasonably could infer Brown restrained or denied the victim access to the marijuana to effect the taking. |
| 3) Did Brown use or threaten immediate physical force to effectuate the taking (robbery element)? | Brown’s role (armed, behind victim), the shooting, and circumstances before/after showed use/threat of force to prevent interference with taking. | Brown claims shooting was self-defense and was not done to prevent a taking. | Held: Sufficient — evidence supported that Brown used or threatened force to prevent resistance or compel delivery during the larceny. |
| 4) Did prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument require reversal? | N/A (prosecution defended its inferences as supported by evidence). | Argues prosecutor misstated facts and made unsupported inferences (e.g., Hargrove had no money; victim startled; witness testimony). | Held: No reversible impropriety. Court found prosecutor’s inferences were supported by evidence or related to issues (some tied to manslaughter/self-defense claim not before court). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Campbell, 328 Conn. 444 (Conn. 2018) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Stovall, 316 Conn. 514 (Conn. 2015) (evidentiary equipoise rule where circumstantial evidence equally supports guilt and innocence)
- State v. Coston, 182 Conn. 430 (Conn. 1980) (larceny plus later assault during escape does not alone prove attempted robbery without use/threat of force to effectuate the taking)
- State v. Lewis, 245 Conn. 779 (Conn. 1998) (felony murder requires proof of predicate felony elements)
- State v. John, 210 Conn. 652 (Conn. 1989) (prohibition on multiple homicide punishments for the same act)