State v. Tine, 137 Conn. App. 483

Valentino’s parked 1997 Saturn was damaged on 29 July 2009; neighbor Suarez observed a white truck near the car and reported it to police.
Valentino reported the incident the next morning; Officer Barsaleau observed damage to Valentino’s car and tire tracks on the lawn near 81-83 Linwood Street.
McBride later inspected the white truck on Linwood Street, noting damage to the truck and paint transfer aligned with Valentino’s car, and spoke with the defendant, who denied involvement.
Defendant admitted doing work at 81-83 Linwood Street on the day, claiming he arrived 7:30–9:00 a.m. and left by 1:00–2:30 p.m.; his witnesses testified he drove a grey truck that day.
The state charged the defendant with evading responsibility under § 14-224(b) (via § 14-107(b)); the trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the operator of the white truck and sentenced him accordingly.
The defendant appealed claiming insufficient evidence on identity and that § 14-107(b) improperly shifted the burden, which the court rejected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state proved the defendant operated the vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt	Tine relies on lack of direct proof; § 14-107(b) provides a permissible inference	§ 14-107(b) wrongly shifts burden to defendant to prove not operator	Yes; sufficient circumstantial evidence supports operation via permissive inference
Whether § 14-107(b) presumption violates due process	Presumption is permissible as permissive, not mandatory	Presumption effectively compels the inference without sufficient predicate facts	Permissive inference; no due-process violation under the record
Whether the trial court properly weighed credibility and facts to support guilt	Evidence favored the state’s witnesses	Defense witnesses supported alternative explanations	Trial court properly weighed evidence; credibility assessed; verdict supported by cumulative facts

State v. Butler, 296 Conn. 62 (2010) (reaffirms sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence standard)
State v. Gerardi, 237 Conn. 348 (1996) (due process limits on mandatory presumptions; permits permissive inferences)
State v. Schonrog, 197 A.2d 546 (1963) (14-107 evidence creates permissible inference of operator)
State v. Goodspeed, 107 Conn. App. 717 (2008) (instructions and elements of 14-224(b) and related duties)
State v. Lounsbury, 198 A.2d 719 (1963) (credibility given to witnesses; weight of testimony)
State v. Tocco, 993 A.2d 989 (2010) (appellate restraint on presumed error without adequate record)
State v. Gerardi, 677 A.2d 937 (1996) (reiterates permissive inference framework)