139 Conn. App. 553
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Jeffrey Samms was convicted after a jury trial of risk of injury to a child (§ 53-21(a)(1)) and two counts of stalking in the second degree (§ 53a-181d(a)).
- On appeal, Samms contends the court erred by instructing the jury that 'likely' means 'in all probability' under Romero.
- The defense also argues there was insufficient evidence to prove following or lay in wait for the victims under § 53a-181d(a).
- The conduct occurred at Hammonasset Beach State Park with S.O. and her daughter S.R. from June to August 2008.
- The victims testified that Samms repeatedly followed them, maintained visual proximity, and sometimes approached within close distances, causing fear.
- The trial court denied a judgment of acquittal on all counts; Samms appeals prior to any remand or retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Romero instruction was proper | State argues instruction followed Romero and was not misleading. | Samms contends instruction misdefined 'likely' and diluted the burden. | Instruction proper; no reversible error. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence Samms followed or lay in wait | State contends sufficient evidence of following with proximity and duration. | Samms asserts insufficiency of 'following' as to both victims. | There was sufficient evidence to support following; conviction sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Romero, 269 Conn. 481 (2004) (defining 'likely' in risk-to-child statute; not reversible error when other charge terms align)
- State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138 (2005) (no need to prove actual injury; 'situation' portion focuses on risk created)
- State v. Arthurs, 121 Conn. App. 520 (2010) (elements of 53a-181d(a); following must be wilful and repeated)
- State v. Marsala, 44 Conn. App. 84 (1997) (following requires proximity in space and time; trial court judgment key)
- State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298 (2007) (evidence of visual proximity can satisfy 'following' in a public setting)
- State v. Calabrese, 279 Conn. 393 (2006) (beyond reasonable doubt standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Devalda, 306 Conn. 494 (2012) (standard for evaluating the entire jury charge on appeal)
- State v. Chapman, 229 Conn. 529 (1994) (conjunctive charging and disjunctive instruction in average review context)