State v. Stephenson, 187 Conn. App. 20

Background

On March 3, 2013, a silent alarm at the Norwalk Superior Courthouse was triggered after an interior office window in the state’s attorney’s suite was broken; police found a black duffel bag containing six unopened canisters of industrial-strength kerosene near the corridor and a disorganized pile of case files on the floor in the secretary area.
Surveillance footage showed a masked individual dressed in black carrying a dark bag approaching the courthouse and, after officers entered, a person in black running from the east side; a Land Rover matching a vehicle registered to the defendant’s stepfather was seen near the courthouse.
DNA mixtures from swabs of the duffel bag, kerosene canisters, and a hammer were consistent with at least two contributors and did not exclude the defendant.
The defendant had two felony matters pending with jury selection scheduled two days later; the broken window was in the office of the prosecutor assigned to those matters.
The state charged burglary (third degree), attempted tampering with physical evidence, and attempted arson (second degree), arguing the defendant entered to tamper with his case files and planned to burn the courthouse to conceal the tampering.
At trial no witness observed the intruder handling the files; the files on the floor were not inventoried, fingerprinted, or DNA-tested, and there was no evidence identifying the files or showing alteration, removal, concealment, or destruction of any file.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that defendant intended to tamper with physical evidence when entering courthouse	Evidence (duffel with kerosene tied to defendant, CCTV, timing before trial, disorganized files) supports inference he entered to find and tamper with his case files	No direct or circumstantial evidence connecting defendant to the files; pile could preexist and no identification/forensics on files; intent speculative	Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove intent to tamper; conviction cannot stand
Whether jury could infer defendant handled or altered files from their disorganized state	Plaintiff: the dumped pile indicates intruder rummaged through files	Defendant: pile alone doesn’t prove intruder touched or moved files or targeted his files	Held for defendant: single fact of disorganized pile inadequate to prove handling/targeting
Whether state proved attempted arson intent tied to tampering (as charged)	Plaintiff: possession of kerosene plus alleged prior tampering step shows plan to burn to conceal tampering	Defendant: even if kerosene was his, no proof he tampered with files first or intended to use kerosene to conceal tampering	Held: conviction fails because underlying tampering intent not proven; arson attempt cannot be sustained under the theory charged
Admission of defense counsel’s testimony about defendant’s intent to plead guilty (exculpatory evidence)	N/A (state objected)	Defendant: testimony would rebut special motive; was wrongly excluded as hearsay	Court did not decide on appeal because convictions reversed on sufficiency grounds; claim not reached

Key Cases Cited

State v. Perez, 147 Conn. App. 53 (Conn. App. 2013) (sets out two-step sufficiency-of-evidence review and permissible inferential reasoning)
State v. Carter, 317 Conn. 845 (Conn. 2015) (conviction must be sustained only on the theory actually tried and instructed)
State v. O’Donnell, 174 Conn. App. 675 (Conn. App. 2017) (intent is a factual question often proved by circumstantial evidence)
State v. Lamantia, 181 Conn. App. 648 (Conn. App. 2018) (permissible inference that defendant intended natural consequences of voluntary conduct)
State v. Jahsim T., 165 Conn. App. 534 (Conn. App. 2016) (appellate court may decline to order conviction of lesser included offenses when not argued by state)