157 Conn.App. 544
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- On Nov. 21, 2011, shots were fired on Enfield Street in Hartford; witnesses saw two men shoot across the street and flee.
- Minutes later Officer Espinosa saw two men (later identified as Young and Bunkley) walking near a school on Magnolia Street; they entered the school cafeteria where 60–80 children were present and were detained without a physical struggle.
- Police recovered nine .40 caliber spent casings on Enfield Street and two firearms (a semiautomatic pistol with blood on the grip and a .38 revolver) under a porch near a path connecting Enfield and Magnolia Streets.
- Forensic testing linked the nine casings to the semiautomatic pistol; blood swabs from the pistol matched or included the defendant’s DNA in several locations; gunshot residue test on the defendant was inconclusive.
- Young was convicted by a jury of attempted assault in the first degree, conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree, risk of injury to a child, carrying a pistol without a permit, and criminal possession of a firearm; total effective sentence 41 years.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Young's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit 1st-degree assault | Concerted actions (arrived together, fired simultaneously, fled together, disposed weapons, hid together) support an inferred agreement | No proof of a prearranged plan; simultaneous shooting or flight together is insufficient | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence permitted inference of a mutual plan to commit the assault |
| Sufficiency of evidence for risk of injury to a child | Entering and hiding in a school cafeteria full of children while fleeing an armed shooting created a situation likely to endanger children | No violent struggle occurred in front of the children; mere peaceful surrender cannot sustain the statute | Affirmed — initiating flight into the school while officers reasonably believed suspects were armed created a sufficient risk |
| Sufficiency on identity (DNA on pistol) | DNA plus extensive circumstantial evidence (proximity, blood on defendant, weapons found nearby, timing) sufficed; state did not rely on DNA alone | DNA evidence alone cannot prove the defendant touched the pistol at the time of the crime; analogizes to fingerprint rule requiring temporal provenance | Affirmed — the case did not rest on DNA alone; cumulative circumstantial evidence supported identity |
| Admission of expert’s testimony that supervisor “confirmed” findings (hearsay / Confrontation Clause) | Any error was harmless because the written report (admitted) showed supervisor review; record inadequate to review confrontation claim | Testimony was inadmissible hearsay and prevented confrontation of the supervisor whose confirmation was essential | Affirmed — if admission was error it was harmless; confrontation claim not reviewable on record inadequacy |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Calabrese, 279 Conn. 393 (establishing standard for sufficiency review and value of cumulative circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Taft, 306 Conn. 749 (conspiracy may be inferred from acting in concert as armed aggressors)
- State v. Payne, 186 Conn. 179 (fingerprint rule on temporal provenance of identification evidence)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 585 (flight-initiated pursuits can support risk-of-injury to child conviction)
- State v. Holley, 144 Conn. App. 558 (risk of injury to child sustained where violent struggle with officers occurred near a child)