State v. McFarlane
17 A.3d 1131
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- May 20, 2008, after a prior confrontation with a gang known as the Triple Bs, McFarlane and others went to Bronson Street to confront Triple Bs members.
- Jamison punched McFarlane; the groups fought, and McFarlane then pulled a handgun and fired five shots into the crowd, injuring Jamison.
- The crowd dispersed; McFarlane fired a subsequent shot as he ran back to his car.
- McFarlane was charged by substitute information with assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and carrying a pistol without a permit.
- The jury found McFarlane guilty on all three counts; the trial court entered judgment accordingly.
- On appeal, McFarlane challenges jury instructions as potentially legally inconsistent and challenges sufficiency of evidence for the pistol-without-permit conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the verdicts legally inconsistent due to different mental states? | McFarlane asserts inconsistency between assault and reckless endangerment findings. | State argues no legal inconsistency given separate acts or varying mental states. | No clear constitutional violation; instructions did not require same act; verdicts not legally inconsistent. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict for carrying a pistol without a permit? | State contends evidence supported barrel length under twelve inches and status as a pistol. | McFarlane argues the evidence did not prove barrel length as required. | Sufficient evidence to infer barrel length under twelve inches; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (test for constitutional error not preserved at trial)
- State v. Mooney, 61 Conn.App. 713 (Conn. App. 2001) (review of inconsistent verdicts for constitutional magnitude)
- State v. Kuranko, 71 Conn.App. 703 (Conn. App. 2002) (two mental states can pertain to different results)
- State v. Hazel, 106 Conn. App. 213 (Conn. App. 2008) (legal inconsistency requires rational theory of dual guilt)
- State v. Bjorklund, 79 Conn.App. 535 (Conn. App. 2003) ( reasonableness of inferring intent and recklessness from acts)
- State v. Flynn, 14 Conn.App. 10 (Conn. App. 1988) (single act can support multiple crimes with different mens rea)
- State v. Williams, 48 Conn.App. 361 (Conn. App. 1998) (demonstrative and testimonial evidence can prove barrel length sub twelve inches)
- State v. Fleming, 111 Conn.App. 337 (Conn. App. 2008) (barrel length inference from caliber evidence sufficient)