153 Conn.App. 773
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant, Robert Perugini, assaulted the victim, Robert Ciochetti, at the Red Rooster Saloon bar in Winsted on December 8, 2009 after driving there from Farmington.
- Barry (the defendant’s fiancée) had asked Ciochetti to leave a key to the bar under a doormat; Ciochetti refused, provoking the defendant.
- The defendant yelled profanities, threw beer bottles near Ciochetti, then choked Ciochetti, slammed him into a wall and a heavy table, causing the table to break loose from wall braces.
- Ciochetti sustained a basilar skull fracture and other injuries requiring hospital care.
- A jury convicted the defendant of second-degree assault under § 53a-60 (a)(1) after finding him not guilty of first-degree assault, and the trial court sentenced him to five years, execution suspended after three, followed by three years of probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of intent to cause serious physical injury | Perugini argues lack of proof of conscious objective to injure | State contends circumstantial evidence supports intent from conduct | Yes; evidence supported intent beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether the jury could infer intent from the defendant’s conduct | Barry and defendant’s testimony show no premeditated intent | Circumstantial evidence and natural consequences support inference | Yes; cumulative evidence supports inferred intent |
| Whether the evidence established the specific injury was caused by intended act rather than accident | Injury may have resulted from various objects (wall, table, floor) | Injury caused by assault; device not essential to prove intent | Yes; intent to cause serious injury proven by overall conduct and injuries |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Elsey, 81 Conn. App. 738, 841 A.2d 714 (Conn. App. 2004) (sufficiency review; circumstantial evidence admissible and cumulative)
- State v. Davis, 283 Conn. 280, 929 A.2d 278 (Conn. 2007) (multi‑fact inference permissible; not every hypothesis needed to be disproved)
- State v. Gombert, 80 Conn. App. 477, 836 A.2d 437 (Conn. App. 2003) (state of mind proven by circumstantial evidence; intent inferred)
- State v. Wells, 100 Conn. App. 337, 917 A.2d 1008 (Conn. App. 2007) (relevance of inferential reasoning to intent)
- State v. McRae, 118 Conn. App. 315, 983 A.2d 286 (Conn. App. 2009) (natural consequences may establish intent)
- State v. Vere C., 152 Conn. App. 486, 98 A.3d 884 (Conn. App. 2014) (notice and scope of charges; impact on lesser offenses)