State v. Robinson
125 Conn. App. 484
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- Robinson was convicted of murder under § 53a-54a and criminal possession of a firearm under § 53a-217 (a)(1) after a jury trial and a court trial on the respective counts.
- The state alleged that Robinson killed Leonard Lindsay with intent to cause his death; the defense argued he only intended to frighten Lindsay.
- Evidence showed Robinson lived with Barno, exhibited jealousy and controlling behavior, and confronted Lindsay after rumors of an affair between Lindsay and Barno.
- Lindsay was found shot in his car at a Hartford gas station; the shooting occurred in October 2002 and Lindsay died later that day.
- Robinson confessed to multiple individuals that he killed Lindsay, with later confessions describing a planned killing, though trial testimony framed his intent as fright.
- The appellate challenge concerns whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson intended to kill Lindsay, as required for murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the state prove intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt? | Robinson. | Robinson contends no intent to kill. | Yes; sufficient evidence supported intent to kill. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Aviles, 107 Conn.App. 209 (2008) (affirming intent element and standards for murder conviction)
- State v. Allen, 289 Conn. 550 (2008) (standard for appellate evidentiary sufficiency review)
- State v. Fleming, 111 Conn.App. 337 (2008) (jury credibility determinations are for the jury to resolve)
- State v. Melendez, 74 Conn.App. 215 (2002) (circumstantial evidence supports inference of intent to kill)