203 Conn.App. 333
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Defendant Mark Capasso, Jr., lived in China for ~12 years; in Sept. 2017 he, his wife, and children were temporarily staying at his parents’ house in Quaker Hill while seeking travel documents.
- To fabricate an incident he hoped would expedite documents, Capasso purchased Sterno (a flammable gel), spread it through the house around 2:00 a.m., lit a sheet for 30–60 seconds, then woke his parents claiming an intruder had started a fire.
- Police found no forced entry; store video and the SKU on the Sterno connected the purchase to Capasso, who admitted buying and spreading the product.
- Capasso was charged and convicted by a jury of reckless burning (§ 53a-114) and false reporting; he appealed only the reckless burning conviction.
- On appeal he argued (1) insufficient evidence that the building was a ‘‘building of another’’ and (2) the verdict was against the manifest weight because his conduct was not reckless.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Capasso's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence proved the endangered structure was a "building of another" under § 53a-114 | "Of another" requires a possessory or proprietary interest by someone other than the actor; circumstantial statements sufficed to show parents owned the house | State had to prove exclusive ownership (or produce deed/land records); here no documentary proof was offered | Court: "of another" covers any non-defendant proprietary/possessory interest (exclusive or nonexclusive); sufficient circumstantial evidence existed that parents owned the house; sufficiency claim fails |
| Whether the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence (i.e., whether Capasso acted recklessly) | Jury reasonably found Capasso consciously disregarded a substantial, unjustifiable risk by spreading accelerant, not reading warnings, having no extinguisher or contingency plan | Defendant argued his planning and limited burning showed lack of recklessness — mere misjudgment, not gross deviation | Court: Trial judge properly exercised discretion; independent weighing supported denial of motion to set aside; verdict not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Parmalee, 197 Conn. 158, 496 A.2d 186 (1985) (purpose of § 53a-114 is to penalize those who endanger another’s property)
- State v. Pond, 315 Conn. 451, 108 A.3d 1083 (2015) (statutory construction principles; consult text and context first)
- State v. Crafter, 198 Conn. App. 732, 233 A.3d 1227 (2020) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Soto, 175 Conn. App. 739, 168 A.3d 605 (2017) (trial judge as factfinder for weight-of-evidence motions; limited appellate review)