State v. Flowers, 161 Conn.App. 747

Background

Defendant Tina Flowers was convicted by a jury of fifth‑degree larceny for taking a $946 television and computer from a Stratford Walmart and was found to be a persistent larceny offender; sentenced to 3 years incarceration plus 2 years special parole.
Surveillance and witness testimony showed Flowers placed the items (with security devices) into two shopping carts, walked to the front of the store while looking around, bypassed cashiers, entered the vestibule, and was stopped by Walmart asset‑protection associate Nicholas Vargas.
Vargas testified Flowers told him she was bringing the merchandise outside to someone in a car to see if they wanted it; to Officer Moore she said she was trying to return items and was waiting for a friend or cousin outside. Flowers became loud and disruptive when detained; police arrested her. Defense witnesses (cousin and fiancee) testified they were at the store but did not observe the detention.
At trial Flowers argued insufficient evidence of larcenous intent and of a wrongful taking; she also claimed prosecutorial impropriety in closing for misstating which officer heard certain statements and for commenting that she did not mention a particular third party by name.
The court reviewed the evidence circumstantially, credited Vargas’s testimony (and the video), and found the jury reasonably could infer intent to permanently deprive and that a taking occurred once she passed the point of sale into the vestibule.
The court acknowledged the prosecutor misstated to whom Flowers had said she was taking items outside (Vargas, not Moore) but held the misstatements did not deprive Flowers of a fair trial given the strength of the evidence and the nature of the error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Flowers)	Held
Sufficiency: intent to commit larceny	Flowers’ conduct (placing high‑value items in carts, looking at cameras, bypassing cashiers, entering vestibule, contradictory explanations, disruptive behavior) permits inference of intent to permanently deprive	No subjective larcenous intent: conduct was like a typical shopper, no furtive concealment or disabling of security, reentered store and gave benign explanations	Affirmed — jury could reasonably infer larcenous intent from circumstantial evidence
Sufficiency: wrongful taking	Continued exclusive possession/control past point of sale (into vestibule) constituted a taking despite lack of overt force or alarm activation	Possession while shopping is permissible; no evidence of force, scheme, or explicit transfer of control	Affirmed — pushing/pulling carts past point of sale with items in exclusive control supported a wrongful taking
Prosecutorial impropriety: misstatements in closing	Prosecutor’s characterizations were fair comment on evidence and reasonable inferences; any misattribution was harmless	Prosecutor repeatedly misstated that Flowers told Officer Moore she was taking items outside and said she didn’t mention a named third party, thereby misstating evidence and prejudicing jury	No constitutional violation — misstatements occurred but were not severe, central, or prejudicial given strong evidence and context
Admission/credibility of witnesses/evidence	Surveillance video and witness testimony supported state’s narrative; credibility for jury to decide	Video quality and witness credibility undermined state’s account; police investigation was inadequate	Rejection of defense credibility determinations was within province of jury; convictions stand

Key Cases Cited

State v. Crespo, 317 Conn. 1 (2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
State v. Rutan, 194 Conn. 438 (1984) (effect of defendant presenting evidence after a denied acquittal motion on appellate review)
State v. Henry, 90 Conn. App. 714 (2005) (definition and degree of force for wrongful taking)
State v. Torres, 111 Conn. App. 575 (2008) (elements of larceny and intent as specific intent crime)
State v. Jennings, 125 Conn. App. 801 (2011) (property need not be removed from premises to constitute larceny)
State v. DeMarco, 311 Conn. 510 (2014) (jury’s province to weigh credibility and resolve conflicting testimony)
State v. LaVoie, 158 Conn. App. 256 (2015) (framework for evaluating prosecutorial argument and context)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (1978) (factors for assessing prosecutorial impropriety and impact on fair trial)
State v. Roberts, 158 Conn. App. 144 (2015) (not every prosecutorial misstep constitutes reversible impropriety)
State v. O’Brien‑Veader, 318 Conn. 514 (2015) (isolated missteps in argument do not necessarily violate due process)