197 Conn.App. 203
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Victim returned to her apartment building on Jan. 6, 2016; defendant approached, put a knife to her back/throat, forced her through locked doors and into her apartment. The victim testified she entered her apartment before the defendant followed.
- Inside, the defendant had a gift bag containing syringes and injectable erectile dysfunction (ED) medication; he forced the victim to undress, touched and licked her breasts and buttocks, then injected himself; he remained for several hours and left after making the victim promise not to call police.
- Victim identified the defendant from a photo array with certainty; forensic swabs from the victim’s breasts contained the defendant’s DNA.
- Police later located the defendant, who told Detective Dauphinais the gift bag contained a knife, gloves, syringes, and ED medication and said the items were for a former girlfriend; officers recovered syringes and injectable ED medication at the defendant’s home.
- Defendant was convicted by jury of home invasion (§ 53a-100aa (a)(1)), burglary in the first degree (§ 53a-101 (a)(3)), and sexual assault in the third degree (§ 53a-72a (a)(1)(B)); convicted counts affirmed on appeal.
- On appeal, defendant argued (1) insufficiency of the evidence for home invasion and first-degree burglary, and (2) erroneous admission of the detective’s testimony recounting the defendant’s statements about the gift bag.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Holmgren's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for home invasion | Victim was "actually present" when defendant entered; testimony and surrounding facts support conviction | Victim was not actually present when defendant entered (entered simultaneously or was dragged in) | Jury could credit victim’s testimony she entered first; home invasion conviction supported |
| Sufficiency of evidence for 1st‑degree burglary (intent) | Possession of syringe and injectable ED medication at time of unlawful entry supports inference of intent to commit sexual assault | Possession explained as intended for former girlfriend; undermines inference of intent | Jury reasonably inferred intent to sexually assault despite defendant’s explanation; burglary conviction supported |
| Admissibility of detective’s testimony about defendant’s statements re: gift bag | Statements were relevant to intent; probative value outweighed prejudice | Testimony was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; court should have excluded it | Trial court did not abuse discretion; testimony was probative and not unduly prejudicial; admission proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crespo, 115 A.3d 447 (Conn. 2015) (governs sufficiency review and reasonable-inference standard)
- State v. Williams, 162 A.3d 84 (Conn. App. 2017) (intent may be inferred from conduct and circumstances)
- State v. Sampson, 166 A.3d 1 (Conn. App. 2017) (trial court has broad discretion on evidentiary admissibility and relevance)
- State v. Allen, 59 A.3d 351 (Conn. App. 2013) (test for undue prejudice and balancing probative value against prejudicial effect)
- State v. Gemmell, 94 A.3d 1253 (Conn. App. 2014) (upholding home invasion conviction where defendant pushed/victimized person into dwelling)