State v. James, 2013 WL 673715

At 2 a.m. on September 20, 2005, two victims were shot in a New Haven apartment; one gunshot victim had shots to the back, the other to the legs, with no direct eyewitness identifications.
A grey Ford Focus connected to the crime fled the scene and was later found abandoned; DNA on a cap and fingerprints on the Ford Focus tied to the defendant and others.
Jamie Walker, the defendant’s girlfriend, rented the Ford Focus; her phone numbers appeared in records related to the case, and Tyson (the defendant’s mother) provided contact numbers for the defendant.
The Beretta pistol used in the shooting was found in a yard opposite the Ford Focus location; a sneaker with DNA matching James Walker, Jr. was found near a fence connected to the crime path.
Fingerprints on the Ford Focus included the defendant’s and James Walker, Jr.’s, and DNA on a cap near the escape route suggested multiple participants; investigators linked cell phone activity to individuals connected to the Ford Focus.
The defendant was convicted after a jury trial on two counts of first-degree assault with a firearm as a principal/ accessory and conspiracy to commit first-degree assault with a firearm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt	James contends evidence was insufficient to prove he was a perpetrator.	James argues lack of direct evidence at trial to place him at the scene or in the car.	Court upheld sufficiency; a reasonable jury could infer guilt from circumstantial chain of inferences.
Duty to charge third party culpability	State argued the court should not give a third party culpability instruction absent direct evidence.	James maintained evidence could support an instruction on third party culpability.	Court did not abuse discretion; no direct link to a third party established the required direct connection.
Prosecutorial improprieties and due process	State asserts closing arguments were proper and within bounds of fair argument.	James claims multiple improper arguments violated due process.	Court affirmed, finding no due process violation after evaluating the closing arguments under Williams factors.

State v. Green, 81 Conn. App. 152 (2004) (two-part test for sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Elsey, 81 Conn. App. 738 (2004) (limits on inferences and requirement of rational link to facts)
State v. Hart, 118 Conn. App. 763 (2010) (no distinction between direct and circumstantial proof for probative force)
State v. Torres, 242 Conn. 485 (1997) (chain-of-inference approach to circumstantial evidence)
State v. Jackson, 304 Conn. 383 (2012) (standards for third-party culpability evidence and jury instruction)
State v. Gibson, 302 Conn. 653 (2011) (prosecutorial argument within bounds of evidence and reasonable inferences)
State v. West, 274 Conn. 605 (2005) (unidentified latent prints and timing of evidence)
State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 (2010) (sarcasm and defense-theory critique in closing arguments)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (1987) (Williams factors for reviewing prosecutorial impropriety)
State v. Edward M., 135 Conn. App. 402 (2012) (preservation and Williams-factor approach to prosecutorial misconduct)