State v. VanDeusen, 126 A.3d 604

Background

On January 10, 2009, defendant Sara VanDeusen rode with Charles Knowles and Carlos Casiano to the home of J.L. (and her boyfriend Gregorio Rodriguez); Knowles had a handgun and fired at the residence, striking areas near where Rodriguez, J.L., and J.L.’s three‑year‑old son (A.S.) had been present.
The state charged VanDeusen with (1) conspiracy to commit first‑degree assault, (2) being an accessory to an attempt to commit first‑degree assault, and (3) risk of injury to a child; the state also sought sentencing enhancements under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53‑202k (five‑year firearm enhancement).
Trial evidence included testimony that VanDeusen knew Knowles had a gun, guided the men to J.L.’s new address, called J.L. to lure occupants outside, helped dispose of the gun afterward, and lied to police about her involvement.
A jury found the defendant guilty on all counts and answered interrogatories finding that “the defendant or another participant used or was armed with and threatened the use of or displayed a firearm,” leading the court to apply § 53‑202k enhancements on all counts.
On appeal the defendant challenged: (a) sufficiency of evidence for the convictions (intent and identity of intended victim), (b) jury instructions (unanimity as to intended victim), and (c) the application of § 53‑202k enhancements to two counts.
The appellate court affirmed convictions and rejected instructional/unanimity claims, but vacated the § 53‑202k enhancements as to (1) conspiracy (unarmed coconspirator rule) and (2) risk of injury to a child (defendant convicted only as principal and no proof she personally used a firearm); remanded to vacate those two enhancements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — intent for conspiracy/attempt to commit 1st‑degree assault	Evidence showed VanDeusen knew of the plan, saw the gun, guided the men to the house, and took steps to lure victims out — sufficient for intent	VanDeusen argued there was no proof she agreed or intended anyone be shot; shooting was unplanned	Affirmed: circumstantial evidence supported inference of requisite intent for conspiracy and accessorial attempt
Sufficiency — identity of intended victim (Rodriguez vs J.L.)	State argued both Rodriguez and J.L. were intended targets; information and trial arguments gave notice	VanDeusen said state proved only intent to assault J.L. and cannot change theory on appeal	Affirmed: information construed liberally; evidence supported intent against both occupants including Rodriguez
Instructional/unanimity error	N/A (state) — instructions were legally proper	VanDeusen contended court should have required jury unanimity as to which person was intended victim	Affirmed: jury was properly instructed on unanimity; no sanctioning of nonunanimous verdict; Famiglietti test not triggered
§53‑202k enhancements	State maintained enhancements valid because jury found a participant used/displayed a firearm and enhancement notice alleged “defendant or a participant”	VanDeusen argued Patterson bars applying §53‑202k to unarmed coconspirators and she was convicted as principal on the child‑risk count without proof she used a gun	Reversed in part: enhancements vacated as to conspiracy (unarmed coconspirator) and risk of injury (convicted as principal with no proof she personally used a firearm); remaining enhancement on accessory/attempt upheld

Key Cases Cited

State v. Patterson, 276 Conn. 452 (Conn. 2005) (§53‑202k does not apply to unarmed coconspirators)
State v. Walton, 227 Conn. 32 (Conn. 1993) (adoption of Pinkerton vicarious conspiracy liability under Connecticut law)
State v. Famiglietti, 219 Conn. 605 (Conn. 1991) (test for whether omission of specific unanimity charge requires new trial)
State v. Apodaca, 303 Conn. 378 (Conn. 2012) (interpretation of Patterson and legislative intent re: §53‑202k and Pinkerton)
State v. Booth, 250 Conn. 611 (Conn. 1999) (knowledge of coconspirators’ weapons supports conspiracy and intent in violent crime)
State v. Millan, 290 Conn. 816 (Conn. 2009) (coconspirator’s conduct at scene can supply evidence of agreement)
State v. Dash, 242 Conn. 143 (Conn. 1997) (§53‑202k is a sentence enhancement, not a substantive offense)