180 Conn. App. 205
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Victim, Chimer Gordon, had previously robbed defendant Quan Soyini at gunpoint; defendant told his brother Kunta Soyini (Kunta) to help find the victim.
- On July 10, 2013, defendant saw the victim, called Kunta, and provided a description; both men searched for the victim and located him near a school parking lot after the victim fled into a nearby house and warned occupants that "guys" were trying to kill him.
- Kunta — who had no prior dispute with the victim — approached and shot the victim in the parking lot; the victim later died of a gunshot wound to the chest. Kunta later pleaded guilty to murder.
- Police video, witness statements, and cell‑phone records showed communications between defendant and Kunta around the time of the shooting and placed defendant in the parking lot shortly after the shooting wearing the same clothing as a person in the video; defendant made statements to a school officer and to police that were inconsistent with call records.
- Defendant was charged and convicted by jury of murder as an accessory (under accomplice theory) and conspiracy to commit murder; he appealed claiming (1) insufficient evidence of intent/assistance/agreement, (2) erroneous jury instructions regarding use of Kunta’s guilty plea and identification of Kunta as the principal, and (3) plain error in giving an accomplice credibility instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Soyini) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove specific intent and aiding (accessory) | Evidence (motive for revenge, defendant solicited Kunta, gave description, searched twice, questioned witnesses, call records, video, Kunta’s admissions) permits inferences of shared intent and knowing assistance | Defendant was not present at killing, did not act as lookout or flee with shooter, did not directly solicit shooting; phone record discrepancies insufficient | Conviction upheld: cumulative circumstantial evidence supported intent, assistance, and accessorial liability |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove conspiracy (existence of agreement) | Agreement may be inferred from coordinated acts, communications, searches, and conduct before/after shooting | Only noncriminal agreement (meet on Vine St.) proven; no express agreement to kill | Conviction upheld: agreement inferred from separate acts and surrounding circumstances |
| Jury instructions re: use of co‑defendant’s guilty plea and statement that Kunta was the principal (unpreserved; Golding) | Court’s overall charge made elements and burden clear, limited use of Kunta’s plea to credibility, and required proof defendant was the perpetrator—so no prejudice | Failure to instruct jury not to use Kunta’s guilty plea to prove murder occurred; stating Kunta was principal diluted burden or amounted to directed verdict | No reversible error: charge read as whole was legally correct and not misleading; Golding claim fails (no deprivation of fair trial) |
| Accomplice credibility instruction (plain error) | Instruction was appropriate where evidence supported Kunta being an accomplice; jury must scrutinize accomplice testimony | Instruction unwarranted because Kunta had pled and been sentenced so had no hope of favorable treatment; singling out witness prejudicial | No plain error: instruction was not obviously erroneous nor did it produce manifest injustice; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bennett, 307 Conn. 758 (Conn. 2013) (discusses forms of active participation from which intent to kill may be inferred and reversed accessorial conviction where such evidence was lacking)
- State v. Gonzalez, 311 Conn. 408 (Conn. 2014) (reversed where evidence did not show defendant solicited or directed principal to kill)
- State v. Bonilla, 317 Conn. 758 (Conn. 2015) (upheld accessorial liability where shared motive and coordinated actions supported inference of intent to kill)
- State v. Just, 185 Conn. 339 (Conn. 1981) (guilty plea of one joint actor inadmissible to prove commission of crime against another but may bear on credibility and warrants cautionary instruction)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)