State v. Morel
AC38326
| Conn. App. Ct. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- Tomas Morel, longtime Dooney & Bourke employee, is convicted after a jury trial of two counts of first-degree larceny and one count of conspiracy to commit larceny.
- Two incidents: Dec 8, 2011 at a tent sale involving sample products and packaging irregularities, and Oct 12, 2012 involving returned and repaired goods.
- Evidence showed Morel and coconspirators mispackaged, moved, and attempted to conceal sample products loaded into a company van, contrary to policy.
- GPS data and surveillance videos supported suspicions of theft and the path of the company truck during the October 12, 2012 incident.
- The trial court admitted uncharged-misconduct evidence regarding Sept 27 and Oct 19, 2012 to prove intent for the Oct 12, 2012 larceny conviction, with limiting instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Dec 8, 2011 conduct supports larceny and conspiracy | Morel argues insufficient evidence of wrongful taking and entry of conspiracy | Morel argues breaches of policy do not prove intent to steal | Yes; evidence supports wrongful taking and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt |
| Whether uncharged misconduct evidence on Oct 19 and Sept 27, 2012 was admissible for Oct 12, 2012 intent | State contends evidence shows larcenous intent; probative value outweighs prejudice | Morel contends evidence is irrelevant/prejudicial and should be excluded | Yes; admissible with limiting instructions; probative value outweighs prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Millan, 290 Conn. 816 (Conn. 2009) (two-step sufficiency standard; cumulative proof valid)
- State v. Flowers, 161 Conn. App. 747 (Conn. App. 2015) (larceny elements; intent and possession over time)
- State v. Franklin, 162 Conn. App. 78 (Conn. App. 2015) (uncharged misconduct evidence standard of admissibility)
- State v. Rinaldi, 220 Conn. 345 (Conn. 1991) (prejudice-based exclusion; limiting instructions guidance)
- State v. Silva, 285 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2008) (intent proven by circumstantial evidence; conduct as proof of intent)
- State v. Adams, 164 Conn. App. 25 (Conn. App. 2016) (sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for larceny when items unrecovered)