State v. Gill
173 A.3d 998
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- On Nov. 18, 2011, defendant Andre Gill attended a Hartford nightclub (Mi Bar); an earlier home invasion had prompted him to obtain two firearms (a .38 revolver and a .380 semiautomatic).
- After a fight inside the club in which victim Fred Pines grabbed Gill by the throat, the altercation continued into the parking lot.
- Testimony established Gill returned to his car, rolled down a window to yell at Pines, exited the car with a .38 revolver as Pines approached, and fired one shot that struck Pines in the torso beneath the breastbone; Pines later died from that wound.
- Co-defendant/companion Charles Young fired two shots into the air with the .380; forensic evidence tied the fatal bullet to a .38/.357 revolver (not the .380).
- After the shooting Gill cleaned the guns with bleach, asked others to discard them, and made false statements to police; the guns were later discarded in the Connecticut River.
- Gill was tried by jury, convicted of murder and related offenses, sentenced to an effective 50-year term, and appealed solely on the ground of insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Gill intended to cause Pines’ death (murder element) | State: cumulative circumstantial evidence (revolver fired at victim, vital torso wound, prior fight, and post-shooting concealment/false statements) permits inference of intent to kill | Gill: only one shot fired, victim appeared initially unhurt, dispute was a relatively minor scuffle—at most manslaughter; post-shooting concealment shows guilt for lesser offense | Affirmed: jury reasonably could infer intent to kill from weapon, manner/wound, events before/after shooting, and consciousness-of-guilt actions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Otto, 305 Conn. 51 (2012) (intent to kill may be inferred from conduct, weapon used, wound, and postoffense behavior)
- State v. Crespo, 317 Conn. 1 (2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and deference to reasonable inferences of the factfinder)
- State v. Gary, 273 Conn. 393 (2005) (jury may infer murder from seemingly minor provocations)
- State v. Moye, 119 Conn. App. 143 (2010) (use of deadly weapon on vital part supports inference of intent to kill)
- State v. Robinson, 125 Conn. App. 484 (2010) (intent to kill may be inferred from weapon, manner used, wound, and surrounding events)
- State v. Grant, 219 Conn. 596 (1991) (factfinder may draw reasonable inferences consistent with guilt; existence of alternative inferences does not require reversal)