State v. Morel, 172 Conn. App. 202

Background

Defendant Tomas Morel, longtime Dooney & Bourke driver, convicted by jury of two counts of first‑degree larceny and one count of conspiracy to commit first‑degree larceny; appeal challenges sufficiency of evidence (Dec. 8, 2011 incident) and admission of uncharged misconduct (Sept. 27 and Oct. 19, 2012) related to the Oct. 12, 2012 incident.
Company procedures: new products strictly inventoried and scanned; returned/repaired and sample products were less rigorously inventoried and shipped in boxes marked by count; sample products used for tent sale were stored and transported in distinct "coffin boxes."
Dec. 7–8, 2011 (tent‑sale events): defendant and two coworkers removed sample items from coffin boxes, placed them in garbage/baby trucker boxes (not normally used for samples), moved them to the loading dock, loaded them into the company van, made a roughly 45‑minute absence, and later returned the van empty; coworkers observed threats by defendant and others to discourage reporting.
Oct. 12, 2012 incident: defendant loaded one skid of returned/repaired merchandise (high value) and two skids of new product; GPS data showed an unexplained stop at an underpass during delivery and the skid of returned goods was missing on arrival at the distribution center.
Pretrial surveillance and GPS evidence: security installed GPS; on Sept. 27 and Oct. 19, 2012 surveillance showed unauthorized stops and, on Oct. 19, opening/handling of boxes and a meeting with a pickup truck at the same underpass; after Oct. 19 defendant’s driving habits changed (fewer stops, faster deliveries). Trial court admitted the Sept. 27/Oct. 19 evidence for the limited purpose of proving intent as to Oct. 12, 2012 larceny; limiting instructions were given.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Dec. 8, 2011 larceny and conspiracy	State: circumstantial evidence (policy breaches, packaging, loading, van absence, threats) supports inference of wrongful taking and conspiracy	Morel: actions consistent with benign explanations (moving goods for tent sale), no proof items went missing or left premises, no direct evidence of intent to steal	Court: Affirmed — cumulative circumstantial evidence and threats permitted reasonable inference of wrongful taking and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt
Admissibility of uncharged misconduct (Sept. 27 & Oct. 19, 2012) to prove intent for Oct. 12 offense	State: prior similar conduct (stops, opening boxes, meeting at underpass) is relevant to show larcenous intent and pattern; probative value outweighs prejudice	Morel: evidence not probative of intent, risks undue prejudice and "once a thief" inference; complex side issue	Court: Affirmed — trial court acted within discretion; evidence relevant to intent, probative value outweighed prejudice, limiting instructions reduced risk of misuse

Key Cases Cited

State v. Millan, 290 Conn. 816 (Conn. 2009) (standard for sufficiency review; evaluate evidence in light most favorable to sustaining verdict)
State v. Flowers, 161 Conn. App. 747 (Conn. App. 2015) (elements of larceny and specific intent requirement)
State v. Adams, 164 Conn. App. 25 (Conn. App. 2016) (limits on inferring theft from ordinary conduct)
State v. Baker, 182 Conn. 52 (Conn. 1980) (conviction may stand even when stolen items not recovered)
State v. Browne, 84 Conn. App. 351 (Conn. App. 2004) (value testimony from complaining witness can suffice)
State v. Saez, 115 Conn. App. 295 (Conn. App. 2009) (circumstantial acts supporting inference of intent to steal)
State v. Silva, 285 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2008) (intent proven by circumstantial evidence; intent is a fact question)
State v. Rizzo, 266 Conn. 171 (Conn. 2003) (high probative value may overcome concerns of prejudice)
State v. Tocco, 120 Conn. App. 768 (Conn. App. 2010) (admission of prejudicial evidence justified when probative value is high)
State v. Franklin, 162 Conn. App. 78 (Conn. App. 2015) (standard for admissibility of uncharged misconduct evidence)