State v. Robinson
127 Conn. App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- On Oct. 21, 2006, Robinson argued with his wife Brenda Allen at their home, during which he threatened to kill her.
- Allen left the bedroom; Robinson followed, attempted to retrieve a knife, and she saw him opening a drawer with loose knives before fleeing.
- Allen and others eventually returned to the home; Major and Coleman heard Robinson threaten, and saw him with a knife at the top of the stairs as Allen fled.
- Police later arrived; Robinson refused to surrender, shouted profanities, and was restrained by police dog after a struggle; a three-inch knife was later found on the kitchen table.
- Robinson was charged with attempt to commit first-degree assault, threatening in the second degree, and interfering with an officer; the jury acquitted on reckless endangerment but convicted on the other counts; he was sentenced to 12 years.
- The defense challenged whether the evidence showed a substantial step toward assault and whether closing arguments improperly appealed to emotion or bolstered witnesses; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence proves a substantial step toward assault | State: evidence shows knife, advancing toward Allen, and serious threats establish substantial step. | Robinson: insufficient proximity or use of knife to prove substantial step; inconsistent testimony undermines causation. | Sufficient evidence; substantial step established |
| Whether closing remarks about potential harm were improper | State: remarks about possible injuries were reasonable inference from evidence. | Robinson: remarks appeal to emotion and rely on facts not in evidence. | Not improper; arguments based on evidence and reasonable inferences |
| Whether remarks about witness credibility amounted to improper bolstering | State: repelled defense suggestion by addressing witness trauma and recalling normal memory variation. | Robinson: prosecutor improperly vouched for witnesses' truthfulness. | Not improper; allowed rebuttal and credibility discussion under case law |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brooks, 88 Conn. App. 204 (2005) (sufficiency of evidence for attempt crimes; substantial step standard)
- State v. Andrews, 114 Conn. App. 738 (2009) (definition of substantial step; focus on likelihood to lead to crime)
- State v. Cox, 293 Conn. 234 (2009) (elements of attempt; corroboration of criminal purpose)
- State v. Morelli, 293 Conn. 147 (2009) (evidence review; reasonable view of evidence to sustain verdict)
- State v. Long, 293 Conn. 31 (2009) (prosecutorial comment on credibility; rebuttal of defense theory)
- State v. Moore, 293 Conn. 781 (2010) (prosecutorial vouching; permissible commentary on credibility)
- State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290 (2000) (prosecutorial improper comment on credibility of a child witness; distinction from Long)