State v. Francione
46 A.3d 219
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Brian T. Francione, Jr. was convicted by jury of arson in the first degree under § 53a-111 (a)(1) for starting a fire at 21 Martin Terrace, a building he knew was occupied.
- Evidence included multiple witnesses who testified that Francione admitted starting the fire because there had not been a structure fire recently, and that he carried a gasoline-containing bottle toward the scene.
- Fire investigators concluded the fire began on the exterior side of the garage, that it was set intentionally, and that alternative causes were excluded.
- The defense attacked the credibility and reliability of key witnesses (Morisseau, Perez, Langrieger) and challenged the expert testimony of Tingley and Grasso, while Tartaglia allegedly threatened Langrieger to stop statements identifying Tartaglia as the arsonist.
- Police and prosecutors gathered testimony from family and friends, and Francione made a series of admissions and statements over several weeks in 2008, including in conversations with Morisseau and Lynch.
- The trial court denied motions for judgments of acquittal, and the jury ultimately found Francione guilty; on appeal, issues include sufficiency of evidence and prosecutorial improprieties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove intentional arson | State argues evidence showed intent beyond reasonable doubt. | Francione argues witnesses unreliable; conflicting testimony undermines guilt. | Yes; evidence, including admissions and training, supported intent beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Prosecutorial improprieties in closing | State contends comments were permitted fair argument. | Defense claims repeated appeals to emotion biased jury. | Improper, but not prejudicial; overall trial fair, verdict upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Turner, 133 Conn. App. 812 (Conn. App. 2012) (two-step sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- State v. Andersen, 132 Conn. App. 125 (Conn. App. 2011) (credibility of witnesses is jury's function; appellate review respects jury discretion)
- State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 (Conn. 2006) (prosecutorial improprieties; factors for due process analysis; curative measures considered)
- State v. Ancona, 270 Conn. 568 (Conn. 2004) (prosecutorial conduct; responding to defense; limits of argument)
- State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1987) (test for determining prejudice from prosecutorial improprieties)