State v. Johnson
138 A.3d 1108
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Efrain Johnson participated with Azibo and others in late-night, masked entries at 215 Charles Street to confront residents selling drugs; he brought baseball bats and wore/used latex gloves on at least two occasions.
- On August 24, 2005, the group forced entry into apartment 101, bound occupants with duct tape (latex fragments matching defendant), and the three residents were later found beaten to death from blunt-force trauma.
- DNA from a latex fragment in the duct-tape binding of the victim’s wrists matched the defendant; cell records and witness testimony placed the defendant with the group that night and described his role as helping bind victims and standing lookout.
- Defendant was tried on multiple counts; convicted by a jury of felony murder and first-degree kidnapping as to Tina Johnson (acquitted on counts related to other victims) and sentenced to 50 years.
- On appeal defendant challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence to prove specific intent for felony murder and kidnapping, and (2) several jury instructions defining the statutory requirement that the killing occur "in the course of and in furtherance of" the underlying burglary.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Johnson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency for felony murder (intent to commit assault/burglary predicate) | Circumstantial proof (bringing bats, masked forced entry, participation in binding, DNA, cell contacts) supports inference he shared intent to assault | Mere presence and no direct proof he struck victims; bats alone insufficient to show pre-entry intent to assault | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to infer intent and sustain felony-murder conviction |
| Sufficiency for kidnapping first degree (intent to inflict physical injury) | Defendant aided restraint (binding) and acted to enable assault; intent may be inferred from conduct and role | No direct evidence he inflicted injury; absence of direct attack undermines intent to injure | Affirmed: sufficient circumstantial evidence that he intended to inflict injury or aided others who did |
| Instruction — "in the course of" (court added "carrying out its objective" and stated objective was assault) | Charge read as a whole and tracked model language; conjunctive phrasing did not relieve state of burden; facts showed deaths occurred while participants present | Addition expanded temporal scope and usurped jury’s role by declaring objective an assault | Affirmed: no reasonable possibility jury was misled; language properly read with temporal qualifiers and related to information alleged |
| Instruction — "in furtherance of" (omission of requested language on personal motive) | Court’s instruction tracked model; adequately explained causal nexus required and court also charged affirmative defenses (duress, statutory defense) | Omitted explicit language that a killing for a personal motive by an accomplice is not "in furtherance of" the felony, depriving defendant of defense | Affirmed: instruction sufficient; requested phrasing addressed material element (not a mere theory-of-defense) and jury had guidance on causal nexus and defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crespo, 317 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2015) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Booth, 250 Conn. 611 (Conn. 1999) (intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Winot, 294 Conn. 753 (Conn. 2010) (defendant’s words and surrounding events as evidence of intent)
- State v. Young, 191 Conn. 636 (Conn. 1983) (construction of "in furtherance of" requires logical nexus between felony and homicide)
- State v. Allen, 216 Conn. 367 (Conn. 1990) (felony-murder "in furtherance of" instruction and limits where killing driven by private motive)