STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. THOMAS F. BONILLA
(SC 19056)
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Argued October 21, 2014—officially released August 18, 2015
Rоgers, C. J., and Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and Robinson, Js.
The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officiаlly released’’ date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history аccompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
Timothy F. Costello, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state’s attorney, and Terence D. Mariani, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion
The record reveals the following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history. On the evening of April 10, 1998, the defendant and his brothers, Noel Bermudez аnd Victor Santiago, were celebrating their reunion after a long period apart. The brothers’ celebration initially entailed driving around Waterbury, drinking liquor, and snorting heroin. At some point during the evening, the defendant noticed that Bermudez was carrying a gun—which did not surprise him, because Bermudez always carried a gun.
Eventually, Santiago suggested that the brothers should rob Freddy Morales, the owner of a bar in Waterbury. In proposing this robbery to his brothers, Santiago explained that he had been stalking Morales, and believed that Morales would be carrying lots of money after closing uр his bar that night. The defendant knew that Santiago had a long-standing grudge against Morales because, a few years prior, Morales had shot Santiago during a fight at that same bar. Santiago still bore scars from that shooting on his neck. Although the defendant expressed some reluctance, he ultimately went along with this plan ‘‘because of how [his] family rolls . . . .’’
Santiago drove his brothers to the street where Morales lived. Bermudez and the defendant exited the car, and then waited nearby for Morales to return home
Immediately after the shooting, the three brothers went to Santiago’s house. Santiago’s wife, Damaris Algarin-Santiago, came downstairs and saw the three brothers sorting through a pile of cash and checks on her coffee table. Bermudez told Algarin-Santiago that he had shot Morales, which the defendant quickly followed upon by threatening Algarin-Santiago, stating, ‘‘if you say anything . . . I’m going to kill you and kill your mother.’’ The defendant asked Algarin-Santiago to deposit the stolen checks in her banking account, but Algarin-Santiago refused, and so one of the brothers burned the checks. The brothers continued destroying evidence by burning their clothes and clеaning the getaway car. Thereafter, Santiago and Algarin-Santiago left the house, and Santiago disposed of the disassembled murder weapon in three different locations. The night concluded when Santiago and Algarin-Santiago returned home and the brothers concocted an alibi.
The murder remained unsolved for more than a decade. By April, 2010, however, Santiago and Algarin-Santiago were estranged, and the latter gave information about the murder to the police. On April 11, 2010, the police arrested the defendant for his involvement with the murder. The defendant then gave a detailed statement about the murder to the police.
The state charged the defendant, in a two count substitute information, with murder as an accessory and felony murder.6 The case was tried to a jury. At trial, after the state rested, the court denied the defendant’s oral motion for a directed verdict. The defendant then rested his case without presenting any evidence. On May 10, 2012, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts. During a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court initially stated that it would sentence the defendant to sixty years imprisonment for each сount, with the sentences to run concurrently. At the state’s request, however, the court stated that it would instead merge the convictions and attach one sentence of sixty years imprisonment to the felony murder count, and rendered judgment accordingly. This direct appeal followed.
I
We begin with the defendant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of murder as an accessory. Specifically, the defendant argues that, contrary to the requirements of
‘‘In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, and then determine whether from the faсts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trier of fact reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ Id., 763. Although ‘‘the jury must find every element proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense . . . each of the basic and inferred facts underlying those conclusions need not be [proven] beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . If it is reasonable and logical for the jury to conclude that a basic fact оr an inferred fact is true, the jury is permitted to consider the fact proven and may consider it in combination with other proven facts in determining whether the cumulative effect of all the evidence proves the defendant guilty of all the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. . . .
‘‘Moreover, it does not diminish the probative force of the evidence that it consists, in whole or in part, of evidence that is circumstantial rather than direct. . . . It is not one fact, but the cumulative impact of a multitude of facts which establishes guilt in a casе involving substantial circumstantial evidence. . . . In evaluating evidence, the [finder] of fact is not required to accept as dispositive those inferences that are consistent with the defendant’s innocence. . . . The [finder of fact] may draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Crespo, 317 Conn. 1, 16–17, 115 A.3d 447 (2015).
The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence only with regard to the intent element of his murder as an accessory conviction. See footnotes 2 and 3 of this opinion. We note that, ‘‘[t]o be guilty as an accessory one must share the criminal intent and community of unlawful purpose with the perpetrator of the crime . . . .’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sargeant, 288 Conn. 673, 680, 954 A.2d 839 (2008). In accordance with our murder
As we have observed on multiple occasions, ‘‘[t]he state of mind of one accused of a crime is often the most significant and, at the same time, the most elusive element of the crime charged. . . . Because it is practically impossible to know what someone is thinking or intending at any given moment, absent an outright declaration of intent, a person’s state of mind is usually [proven] by circumstantial evidence . . . .’’ (Citation omitted.) State v. Rodriguez, 180 Conn. 382, 404, 429 A.2d 919 (1980). For example, intent may be proven by ‘‘conduct before, during and after [a] shooting. Such conduct yields facts and inferences that demоnstrate a pattern of behavior and attitude toward the victim by the defendant that is probative of the defendant’s mental state.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bennett, supra, 307 Conn. 766.
We briefly revisit the most relevant evidence in this case, being mindful that we must construe it in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Id., 763. At trial, the defendant’s statement to the police was read into evidence. In it, he described how Santiago had ‘‘hated’’ Morales ever since Morales shot Santiago ‘‘during a gang fight down at the bar.’’ Recalling the night Morales was robbed and killed, the defendant explained that each brother had a role to play: he was ‘‘going to be the lookout man,’’ Bermudez was going to approach Morales while armed with a handgun, and Santiago was going to stay inside the getaway car. The defendant stated that, for approximately fifteen minutes, he and Bermudez had lain in wait for Morales to arrive home from working at the bar. When they eventually saw Morales, they sneaked up behind him, with the defendant staying a few paces back ‘‘to look out in case something went wrong.’’ After Bermudez called out to Morales and pointed his gun ‘‘right at [Morales’] chest,’’ the defendant heard two shots and saw Morales fall to the ground. All of the brothers then fled with the stolen bank bag to Santiago’s home, where Algarin-Santiago was told about the shooting. The defendant recalled being rather surprised that Algarin-Santiago was unaware of ‘‘what was going on’’ because ‘‘she [was Santiago’s] ride or die chick.’’9 The defendant added that, before he left for the night, everyone ‘‘made a pact we would never tell anyone . . . . We all came up with an alibi.’’
This evidence was supplemented by the testimony of Algarin-Santiago. She stated that Morales had once shot Santiago in the neck, and that Santiago had stalked Morales during the time that led up to the brothers’ reunion on April 10, 1998. According to Algarin-Santiago, on the night of that reunion, she was abruptly woken up to find Santiago, Bermudez, and the defendant in her living room. Algarin-Santiago was informed that Bermudez had just shot Morales, and the defendant warned ‘‘if you say anything . . . I’m going to kill you. I’m going to kill you and
From the cumulative force of this evidence, the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant shared the intent to cause the death of Morales. The origin of Santiago’s long-standing hatred for Morales was amply established and, in turn, it was a fair inference that the brothers were all united in that hatred and sought to avenge Santiago’s being shot in the neck by Morales. Some significance could also be attached to the brothers’ banding together on the night of their reunion, once they had added strength in numbers to settle an old score. In the eyes of the jury, it was reasonable to find that it was the conscious object of these brothers to ambush and kill Morales—with the potential bounty of a robbery merely being an added ‘‘bonus.’’ Cf. State v. Bennett, supra, 307 Conn. 773 (‘‘[i]n the present case, there was no motive to kill independent of the burglary’’); see also State v. Otto, 305 Conn. 51, 67, 43 A.3d 629 (2012) (‘‘intent to kill may be inferred from evidence that the defendant [had a] motive to kill’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Lopez, 280 Conn. 779, 795, 911 A.2d 1099 (2007) (‘‘It is not essential that the state prove a motive for a crime. . . . But it strengthens its case when an adequate motive can be shown.’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]). Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the present case is, thus, quite unlike Bennett, wherein a defendant who successfully appealed his murder as an accessory conviction essentially had no preexisting linkage to a victim—much less one that was steeped in violence. See State v. Bennett, supra, 766 (victim аpparently never met defendant, and met perpetrator ‘‘under nonconfrontational circumstances’’ less than one day before murder).
Beyond a shared motive for killing Morales, the jury further could have determined that the defendant’s conduct before, during, and after the shooting supported a finding that he possessed the requisite state of mind. Specifically, the evidence showed that the defendant and Bermudez lurked near Morales’ house, awaiting an armed confrontation, for approximately fifteen minutes before he arrived. The defendant was, by his own admission, serving as a lookout for Bermudez while he shot and killed Morales. See id., 769 (active participation in murder ‘‘through acts beneficial to the principal such as . . . acting as a lookout’’ common in surveyed cases finding accessorial liability for murder). After fleeing to Santiago’s home, the defendant threatened to kill Algarin-Santiago and her mother if she told anyone about that night’s shooting. Moreover, the defendant burned the clothing that he wore during the shooting, cleaned the getaway car, and conversed about the need to dispose of the murdеr weapon and create an alibi. See State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 130, 646 A.2d 169 (1994) (destruction of murder evidence indicates consciousness of guilt, ‘‘from which a jury may draw an inference of an intent to kill’’). Collectively, the defendant’s conduct on the night of Morales’ murder thus did not amount to ‘‘[m]ere presence as an inactive companion [or] passive acquiescence . . . .’’ State v. Bennett, supra, 307 Conn. 770. Instead, it was perfectly logical for the jury to find that this proactive conduct on the defendant’s part was ‘‘a pattern of behavior and attitude toward a victim’’ that demonstrated a shared intent to cause his death. Id., 766. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the defendant guilty of murder as an accessory.
II
We next turn to the defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the defense of duress. At the outset, we note that the defendant concedes that he did not request an instruction on the defense of duress at any point during trial.10 Nevertheless, he contends that he was ‘‘entitled’’ to one, relying on State v. Helmedach, 306 Conn. 61, 48 A.3d 664 (2012), and State v. Heinemann, 282 Conn. 281, 920 A.2d 278 (2007), for the proposition that there is a ‘‘right to a duress instruction whenever the evidence could support a claim of duress when viewed most favorably to [a] defendant.’’ In response, the state, relying on, inter alia, cases such as State v. Santiago, 305 Conn. 101, 49 A.3d 566 (2012), and State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 975 A.2d 17 (2009), overruled on other grounds by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 472–73, 10 A.3d 942 (2011), argues that the defendant’s claim must fail because ‘‘he did not request a duress instruction, and the trial court was not obligated to provide one sua sponte.’’ We agree with the state, and conclude that the trial court did not have an obligation to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on a defense of duress.
‘‘A challenge to the validity of jury instructions presents a question of law over which [we exercise] plenary review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Santiago, supra, 305 Conn. 191. ‘‘Thе right of a defendant charged with a crime to establish a defense is a fundamental element of due process.’’ State v. Heinemann, supra, 282 Conn. 298. Moreover, ‘‘[i]t is well established that . . .
The defendant’s reliance on State v. Helmedach, supra, 306 Conn. 61, and State v. Heinemann, supra, 282 Conn. 281, for the proposition thаt the trial court was obligated to instruct the jury on the defense of duress, sua sponte, is misplaced. Those authorities are readily distinguishable from the present appeal and do not dictate that he was ‘‘entitled’’ to a sua sponte jury instruction on the defense of duress. In both of the underlying cases, the juries did receive instructions on the defense of duress and, on appeal to this court, the respective defendants merely challenged a particularized aspect of the instructions. See State v. Helmedach, supra, 77–79 (arguing that duress defense instructions, as given, did not adequately address statutory exception to that defense); State v. Heinemann, supra, 298 (arguing that duress defense instructions, as given, did not account for ‘‘recognized differences between juveniles and adults’’). Thus, in asserting that he had a ‘‘right’’ or ‘‘entitlement’’ to a sua sponte jury instruction on the defense of duress, the defendant attaches undue significance to words that he has taken out of the fuller context of these cases.
Our well established approach to jury instructions and defenses respects ‘‘the defendant’s right to control the conduct of his own defense . . . .’’ (Citation omitted.) State v. Ebron, supra, 292 Conn. 696. Further, it recognizes ‘‘the responsibility оf the parties to help the court in fashioning an appropriate charge. . . . The ever increasing refinement of our law justifies the cooperation of counsel in stating requests for jury instructions . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. In light of our controlling precedent and these important, practical considerations, we conclude that it would be inappropriate to place the onus on a trial court to discern, without any request from the parties, the specific defenses on which a jury should be instructed. Accordingly, we conclude that the triаl court did not improperly fail to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on a defense of duress.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.