State v. Rosado
147 Conn. App. 688
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant Jose R. Rosado was charged with conspiracy to commit home invasion, burglary in the first degree, and robbery in the first degree arising from a November 12, 2009 East Hartford armed robbery.
- Two masked men entered Carlos Guerrero’s room; one wore a white jacket and wig, the other a black ski mask; both had weapons.
- Vasques identified the man in the black ski mask; Carlos Guerrero chased the assailants and recovered a cap later linked to a suspect.
- Police later found a black shirt, black ski mask, white sweatshirt, and a wig along the getaway route; evidence included a wallet, ID, and receipts.
- Rosado’s sister, Vicky, initially denied knowledge but later provided information; investigators gathered a list of suspects including Rosado.
- DNA testing linked Rosado to DNA on the inside rim of a white baseball cap and the inside of a black ski mask; multiple witnesses corroborated involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy convictions | Rosado argues inconsistent, circumstantial evidence fails to show agreement and overt acts. | State contends the cumulative evidence, including witness testimony and physical evidence, proves conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. | Evidence was sufficient; convictions affirmed. |
| Failure to respond to jury clarifying instruction on conspiracy | Rosado asserts the court violated Practice Book § 42-27 by not clarifying before verdict. | State says defense counsel waived the issue by agreeing to proceed to verdict. | Waiver valid; claim not reviewable; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jennings, 125 Conn. App. 801 (Conn. App. 2011) (circumstantial evidence admissible; total evidentiary impact governs guilt)
- State v. Riser, 70 Conn. App. 543 (Conn. App. 2002) (no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence for probative force)
- State v. Jagat, 111 Conn. App. 173 (Conn. App. 2008) (jury may draw reasonable inferences from proven facts)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 239 (Conn. 1989) (Golding test for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Taylor, 132 Conn. App. 357 (Conn. App. 2011) (conspiracy instruction; review of whether mere knowledge suffices)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2011) (waiver of constitutional claims when counsel concurs at trial)