179 Conn. App. 588
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Miguel Juarez was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit murder and attempt to commit murder for soliciting the killing of his wife’s boyfriend, William Forte.
- Juarez allegedly offered $5,000 to former employee German Zecena to kill Forte; when Zecena declined, Juarez asked him to find someone who would do it.
- Zecena recruited Luis Miranda, a police informant, who arranged a meeting with Detective Frederick Quesada posing as a contract killer; Zecena directed Quesada to Forte’s house, gave him a knife and paid $80 toward the agreed price.
- Police arrested Zecena and Juarez; at trial Zecena testified about Juarez’s offer and the many subsequent phone calls from Juarez asking about surveillance and whether a killer had been found.
- The jury found Juarez guilty; he appealed arguing insufficiency of the evidence (for both counts) and that the state failed to prove the offenses as charged in the long-form information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Juarez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit murder | Zecena’s testimony that Juarez offered $5,000 plus Juarez’s repeated calls and directions to surveil Forte show intent and agreement | The $5,000 offer was "talk in the air" without identification of the victim or details—insufficient to prove an agreement | Affirmed: Offer + corroborative conduct (surveillance directions, frequent calls) permitted reasonable inference of an agreement and shared knowledge of the intended victim |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempt to commit murder | Juarez solicited Zecena to find/hire a killer; Zecena’s hiring of Quesada and the actions taken were substantial steps corroborating Juarez’s intent | Juarez had no intent to cause Forte’s death and committed no substantial step; insufficient to prove attempt or accessorial liability | Affirmed: Juarez’s solicitation, repeated conduct and Zecena’s substantial steps (hiring/meeting with the purported killer) supported attempt conviction, including as an accessory |
| Adequacy of the long-form information / charge as accessory | State need only prove essential elements; defendant had notice and could be convicted as an accessory though not specifically labeled | Failure to charge as accessory and reliance on certain dates (May–June; June 19) deprived Juarez of notice and proof of conduct on those dates | Affirmed: Defendant may be convicted as an accessory despite not being charged as one; dates related to coconspirator activity and defendant showed no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Leandry, 161 Conn. App. 379 (review standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Daniel B., 164 Conn. App. 318 (test for cumulative circumstantial evidence and substantial-step attempt analysis)
- State v. James, 247 Conn. 662 (defendant may be convicted as accessory though charged as principal)
- State v. Servello, 59 Conn. App. 362 (payment or partial payment to a hired killer not required to prove a substantial step in attempt)