State v. Sherman
127 Conn. App. 377
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Sherman was convicted after a jury trial of burglary in the third degree, larceny in the third degree, carrying a pistol without a permit, theft of a firearm, and criminal possession of a firearm.
- Victim Erica Pagliuco resided at 24 Pearl Street, Manchester; burglary occurred around Aug. 12, 2006, with missing jewelry and two handguns.
- Defense argued insufficient evidence for unlawful entry and all charges; State argued circumstantial and direct evidence supported the verdict.
- Officers recovered jewelry linked to the burglary and identified the defendant as a participant; a .380 handgun was found in a co-defendant’s car and tied to the defendant.
- Witnesses placed the defendant at related locations and times; the state offered testimony of jewelry sales, possession, and statements by the defendant about stolen items.
- The appellate court conducted a two-step sufficiency review and addressed alleged prosecutorial improprieties, ultimately affirming all convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of burglary proof | State: evidence supported unlawful entry by proximity and possession of stolen items | Sherman: no direct proof of entry or unlawful presence | Sufficient evidence supports unlawful entry and burglary conviction |
| Sufficiency of larceny proof | State: twelve jewelry items and handgun show larceny with value over $1000 | Sherman: insufficient proof of taking/valuation | Sufficient evidence supports larceny in the third degree |
| Sufficiency of carrying a pistol without a permit | State: defendant possessed a .380 handgun linked to the burglary | Sherman: no proper foundation for possession | Sufficient evidence supports carrying a pistol without a permit |
| Sufficiency of theft of a firearm | State: handgun was a firearm and operable; possession/transfer established | Sherman: ammunition/testing issue defeats operability | Sufficient evidence supports theft of a firearm |
| Prosecutorial impropriety (unpreserved) | Stevenson approach allows review for due process despite preservation status | Prosecutorial conduct violated fair trial rights | No improper conduct found; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Spikes, 111 Conn.App. 543 (2008) (sufficiency of burglary based on near-location and possession evidence)
- State v. Correa, 57 Conn.App. 98 (2000) (unlawful entry inference from circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Edwards, 100 Conn.App. 565 (2007) (larceny by receiving stolen property; broad definition under 53a-119)
- State v. Miles, 97 Conn.App. 236 (2006) (possession of firearm operability considerations)
- State v. Davis, 3 Conn.App. 359 (1985) (owner may testify to value of property for §53a-124)
- State v. Spikes, 111 Conn.App. 551 (2008) (value testimony foundation sufficient for jury)
- State v. Baker, 182 Conn. 52 (1980) (guidance on valuation evidence)
- State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (1987) (due process considerations in prosecutorial conduct)
- State v. Long, 293 Conn. 31 (2009) (standard for prosecutorial impropriety impact)
- State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563 (2004) (unpreserved prosecutorial impropriety review)