State v. Soto
168 A.3d 605
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Police executed a June 11, 2014 search warrant at an apartment where defendant Luis Soto was staying; officers found a loaded .40 semiautomatic pistol, ammunition, and cocaine in the closet of the bedroom identified as Soto’s.
- Officers discovered Soto’s ID and clothing in the bedroom; Soto was detained in the kitchen with the other occupants and allegedly asked in Spanish, “who’s going to take it,” referring to the pistol.
- Officers testified Soto said he had been staying in the bedroom, that clothes in the closet were his, and that he had been "in and out of the closet multiple times." Soto, a convicted felon, denied owning or ever seeing the gun and denied making the inculpatory statements.
- A jury convicted Soto of criminal possession of a pistol and risk of injury to a child, acquitted him on other counts; he was sentenced to 12 years (2 mandatory).
- Soto did not file any postverdict motions (e.g., motion to set aside verdict or motion for a new trial); he had moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case but did not renew it after verdict.
- On appeal Soto argued the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and sought a new trial; the appellate court declined review as the claim was unpreserved and not reviewable under Golding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence warranting a new trial | State: the jury reasonably credited officers’ testimony showing constructive possession (statements, ID, clothes, presence in room, question to Pineiro) | Soto: state’s case was weak; conviction rests largely on a four-word question allegedly spoken by Soto, which he denied; thus verdict unreliable | Unreviewable — claim unpreserved; motion for judgment of acquittal at close of state’s case does not preserve weight claim; affirm conviction |
| Whether appellate Golding review applies to an unpreserved weight claim | State: record inadequate; only trial judge is competent to reweigh evidence and assess credibility, so Golding review fails | Soto: requests Golding review, arguing the claim is of constitutional magnitude and record supports review | Golding review denied — Soto fails Golding’s first prong (record inadequate) because trial court never ruled on a postverdict weight claim and appellate court cannot act as thirteenth juror |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Griffin, 253 Conn. 195 (Conn. 2000) (unpreserved weight-of-evidence claims are not reviewable on appeal; motion for judgment of acquittal does not preserve weight claim)
- Sinchak v. Commissioner of Correction, 173 Conn. App. 352 (Conn. App. 2017) (only the trial judge who presided over the trial is legally competent to decide whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982) (discusses appellate courts reweighing evidence where state practice required it; distinguished here)