State v. Mark, 170 Conn. App. 241

Early morning Nov. 2, 2010, victim found dead from head trauma; no murder weapon recovered at scene. Defendant (Michael Mark) and three friends had encountered the victim earlier; defendant told others he had hit the victim with a rock and thought he had killed him.
After the assault, defendant and another (Tetan) returned to the scene; witnesses heard defendant say he needed to "find the brick" or "get something." Vanessa Vazquez saw defendant bend down and stand up; Tetan later testified defendant told him he had "gotten rid of the rock."
Multiple witnesses heard the defendant admit to killing or thinking he killed the victim and that he feared people would talk to police.
Defendant was tried on murder, related charges, and tampering with evidence (disposing of the rock). A jury convicted on all counts.
At sentencing the trial court granted the defendant’s post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal on the tampering count, concluding evidence of actual tampering was inadequate; the state obtained permission to appeal under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-96.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for tampering with evidence (whether defendant disposed of the rock believing an official proceeding was probable and with intent to impair its availability)	Evidence (statements to Tetan and others, witness testimony about returning to scene and defendant saying he disposed of the rock, absence of weapon at scene, admissions fearing others would talk) supports inference defendant believed prosecution was probable, disposed of the rock, and intended to impede an official proceeding	No witness actually saw defendant pick up or destroy the rock; state failed to prove defendant believed an official proceeding was probable or that he actually tampered with physical evidence	Reversed trial court: a reasonable juror could infer belief, disposal, and intent from circumstantial and direct evidence; reinstated guilty verdict on tampering count
Prosecutorial appealability (whether state’s appeal violated double jeopardy)	Court ruled after jury verdict; appeal permitted where court later grants acquittal following jury conviction	Defendant argued state couldn’t appeal a judge’s pre-verdict JOA for insufficient evidence	Appeal permitted; double jeopardy not implicated because the court ruled after the jury verdict

State v. Avcollie, 178 Conn. 450 (trial court may set verdict aside in limited circumstances)
State v. Sirimanochanh, 26 Conn. App. 625 (standards for setting aside jury verdict; three situations permitting JOA)
State v. Jordan, 314 Conn. 354 (elements of tampering with evidence; defendant’s belief that proceeding is probable)
State v. Guerrera, 167 Conn. App. 74 (awareness of witnesses supports inference prosecution probable)
State v. Griffin, 253 Conn. 195 (trial court should not set aside verdict where some evidence supports jury)
State v. Cari, 163 Conn. 174 (no legal distinction in probative force between direct and circumstantial evidence)
State v. Otto, 305 Conn. 51 (intent often inferred from conduct and circumstantial evidence)
State v. Bradley, 124 Conn. App. 197 (appellate sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)