133 Conn. App. 785
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Alberto Vasquez was convicted at trial of robbery in the third degree and conspiracy to commit robbery in the third degree, lesser offenses from a three-count information charging first-degree offenses.
- Bultron (accomplice) and Angelo Vasquez aided in planning and executing the robbery; Bultron guarded Havens at the carwash and fled with Angelo and Vasquez.
- Police investigation led to Vasquez’s April 11, 2007 arrest after a tip and recordation of a phone call with Eileen Vasquez in which Vasquez admitted planning the robbery.
- Vasquez was questioned and ultimately confessed to participating in the Rockville carwash robbery as the getaway driver, after initial denials.
- At trial, Vasquez moved for a judgment of acquittal after the state rested; the court denied the motion; the jury acquitted of the charged first-degree offenses and convicted of the lesser third-degree offenses.
- Vasquez challenged (on appeal) multiple trial court rulings, including jury instructions, a mistrial motion based on prosecutorial impropriety, and a motion to suppress his statement to police; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Vasquez aggrieved by the denial of the judgment of acquittal? | Vasquez contends the state failed to prove weapon use; aggrievement supports appeal. | State failed to prove required weapon-use element for the charged offenses; but Vasquez was convicted of lesser offenses. | No aggrievement; review denied for lack of aggrievement. |
| Did the court err by not giving an accomplice-motive instruction? | Bultron’s potential interest in favorable treatment could affect credibility. | Specific instruction on accomplice motive was warranted. | Court’s general accomplice instruction plus cautions sufficed; no error. |
| Was the alibi instruction proper and did it dilute the State’s burden of proof? | Alibi evidence should be considered with other evidence; burden remains on state. | Labeling alibi as rebuttal and not requiring explicit doubt-disproof was improper. | Instruction adequate; alibi treated as rebuttal, yet properly guided jury. |
| Was the consciousness-of-guilt instruction properly given regarding closet concealment and defendant’s statements? | Evidence supported consciousness-of-guilt inference from concealment and false statements. | Statements as to whereabouts and closet concealment lacked sufficient nexus to guilt. | Instruction supported by evidence; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Was there a need for a unanimity instruction distinguishing principal/accessory vs. Pinkerton liability? | Jury could be required to unanimously find either participation/accessory or Pinkerton liability. | Wanted explicit unanimity as to liability theory; current instruction ambiguous. | Appellate review limited; court’s instruction did not mislead; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sanders, 86 Conn.App. 757 (Conn. App. 2005) (aggrievement prerequisite to appellate jurisdiction)
- State v. Talton, 209 Conn. 133 (Conn. 1988) (test for aggrievement in appeals)
- State v. Flores, 301 Conn. 77 (Conn. 2011) (standard for evaluating jury instructions as a whole)
- State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 (Conn. 2011) (accomplice credibility instruction requirements)
- State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397 (Conn. 1993) (alibi instructions; burden and framework)
- State v. Evans, 205 Conn. 528 (Conn. 1987) (alibi instruction characterization)
- State v. Gipsom, United States v. Gipson (5th Cir. 1977) (unanimity/ Pinkerton-related instruction discussion)