State v. CapassoState v. Capasso
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bright, Moll, DiPentima
Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crimеs of reckless burning and false reporting of an incident in the second degree, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant, who previously had been living in China for more than a decade, and his wife and two children were temporarily living with his parents. The defendant and his family intended to return to China but were having difficulty obtaining certain travel documentation. As a result, the defendant devised a plan that he hoped would expedite that documentation, whereby he sought to leverage one Chinese agency against another by making it appear that the Chinese government had attempted to intimidate him and his family by entering his parents’ house and starting a fire. To effectuate this plan, the defendant spread an accelerant, Sterno, a flammable, fire starting gel, throughout the house while his parents, wife, and children were sleeping. The defendant then lit a candle and used it to burn a sheet for thirty to sixty seconds. After extinguishing the fire, the defendant awakened his parents and told them that he had heard someone in the house and that the person had spread accelerant and started a fire. His father then called 911. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of reckless burning and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside the verdict because his conviction of reckless burning was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he recklessly endangered the building ‘‘of another‘’ as required by the reckless burning statute (
1. The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant‘s conviction of reckless burning: the jury reasonably could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the endangered building where the fire was set was a building ‘‘of another‘’ as required by
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant‘s motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence: there was a reasonable basis for the jury to find that the defendant‘s intentional starting of the fire recklessly placed the house in danger of destruction or damage; there was evidence that the defendant spread an accelerant around the house at 2 a.m. while his parents, wife, and children were sleeping, he set a sheet on fire within five feet of the accelerant, he did not fully read the warning labels for the accelerant, he had no experience using the particular accelerant, and he did not have a fire extinguisher or a contingency plan in place should his plan go awry; moreover, contrary to the defendant‘s claim, the court did not rely exclusively on the jury‘s verdict in ruling on the motion but independently weighed the evidence in accordance with the standard governing a trial court‘s consideration of
MOLL, J. The defendant, Mark Steven Capasso, Jr., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of reckless burning in violation of General Statutes
The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history are relevant to our disposition of the defendant‘s claims. In December, 2004, the defendant moved to China to perform missionary work, and he lived there for nearly twelve years prior to returning to Connecticut. In September, 2017, the defendant, his wife, and their two children were living temporarily with his parents at 145 Bloomingdale Road in Quaker Hill. The defendant and his family intended to return to China but were having difficulty obtaining travel documentation for their children. As a result of these difficulties, the defendant devised a plan that he hoped would expedite the travel documentation process. Specifically, the defendant sought to leverage one Chinese agency against another by making it appear as though the Chinese govеrnment had attempted to intimidate him and his family by entering his parents’ house and starting a fire.
To accomplish this goal, the defendant purchased Sterno, a flammable, fire starting gel, from a Walmart store. Three days later, on September 4, 2017, at approximately 2 a.m., the defendant spread Sterno throughout the house while his parents, his wife, and their children were sleeping. The defendant then lit a candle and used it to burn a sheet for thirty to sixty seconds. After extinguishing the fire, the defendant awakened his parents and told them that he had heard someone in the house and that the person had spread accelerant and started a fire. The defendant‘s father then called 911.
When the police arrived, the defendant informed them that he was in the basement on the phone with the Chinese consulate when he heard footsteps upstairs. He then went upstairs and found a burning candle and sheet, along with a bottle of Sterno that he had never seen before. The defendant also told the police that he believed the Chinese consulate was responsible for the incident.
While at the scene, the police searched the premises for signs of forced entry but found none. An officer wrote down the stock keeping unit (SKU) number that was on the Sterno bottle to help determine where the bottle had been purchased and bеgan investigating whether any local stores carried Sterno products with the same SKU number. The officer determined that the
Thereafter, the defendant was arrested and charged by way of a substitute information with onе count of reckless burning in violation of
I
The defendant first claims that his conviction of reckless burning must be reversed because the state failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he recklessly endangered a building ‘‘of another.‘’ See General Statutes
Before we reаch the merits of the defendant‘s contentions, we set forth the following relevant legal principles and standard of review. ‘‘In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we apply a two part test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the [jury] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt . . . . This court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the jury if there is sufficient evidence to support the jury‘s verdict. . . .
‘‘While the jury must find every еlement 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 proved beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . If it is
‘‘On appeal, we do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the jury‘s verdict of guilty.‘’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Crafter, 198 Conn. App. 732, 737–38, 233 A.3d 1227, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 957, 239 A.3d 318 (2020).
To the extent our analysis of the defendant‘s claim requires us to interpret the reckless burning statute, ‘‘our review is de novo. . . . When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. . . . In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language. . . . In seeking to determine that meaning,
A
We begin by addressing the defendant‘s argument that the state had the burden to prove that he did not have an ownership interest in the house at 145 Bloomingdale Road. Stated differently, the defendant contends that the phrase ‘‘building . . . of another‘’ in
We turn to the text of
Moreover, even if the phrase ‘‘of another‘’ in
On the basis of the foregoing, we reject the defendant‘s argument that the state had the burden to prove that the house at 145 Bloomingdale Road was owned exclusively by someone other than the defendant.
B
We next address the defendant‘s argument that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the house was owned by someone else. This argument also fails.
The following evidence, on which the jury reasonably could have relied, and procedural history are relevant to our analysis. During the course of their investigation, the police interviewed the defendant twice. The first interview occurred shortly after the police responded
The police interviewed the defendant for the second time later that morning at the police station. During this interview, the defendant tоld the police that he and his family did not intend to stay in Connecticut permanently and that they planned on returning to China where he taught English. He also admitted that he felt that his family was imposing on his parents while staying at the house. Specifically, the defendant stated that ‘‘he knew deep down‘’ that ‘‘his parents, as welcoming as they‘ve been for the past couple of months . . . have their lifestyle and . . . if we have to overstay because of the situation . . . I feel like it‘s more of a burden on them.‘’
Finally, during trial, the prosecutor questioned the defendant about who owned the house. The defendant did not affirmatively state that he owned the house. Instead, he simply responded thаt ‘‘[i]t‘s my home when I‘m here . . . .‘’
After the state rested its case, the defendant moved to dismiss the reckless burning count on the ground that the state had failed to prove that the defendant recklessly endangered a building ‘‘of another‘’ because it did not offer any evidence of who owned the house. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that there was sufficient evidence that a person other than the defendant owned the house. After the jury returned its verdict, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict with respect to the reckless burning count, in which he, inter alia, repeated the same argument. In that connection, the defendant argued that the statе should have been required to prove ownership of 145 Bloomingdale Road ‘‘with proof of the highest level of certitude: a deed, a mortgage, land records from city hall or some other such hard document.‘’ The court denied his motion, stating that, ‘‘[a]lthough the state did not introduce land records or a deed or mortgage, the evidence, in fact, was overwhelming that the defendant and his family were living at his parents’ house. In fact, the defendant‘s own statements included his feelings about imposing on his parents by living there with his wife and children.‘’
In his principal appellate brief, the defendant claims,
As an initial matter, the plain language of
In the present case, the state produced sufficient evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant‘s parents owned the house. When interviewed at the scene, the defendant expressly stated that it was ‘‘their house.‘’ The state also produced evidence indicating that the defendant had spent most of the last twelve years in China, he and his family did not intend to move back to Connecticut permanently, they planned their return to Connecticut as a short-term trip, and they already had plans to move back to China. The defendant also told the police that he felt as though he was burdening his parents by staying with them. Moreover, when an officer asked the defendant whether he brought groups to Connecticut for short-term trips to his parents’ house, the defendant responded that he did not, and stated that they stayed in hotels, with host families, or at a house in New London that he and his brother would rent to accommodate them. He also failed to state affirmatively that he owned the house when questioned at trial about who owned the house, allowing for a reasonable inference that he did not own the house.
In sum, viewing all of the evidence available in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict; see State v. Crafter, supra, 198 Conn. App. 738; we conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the endangered building was that ‘‘of another.‘’ Accordingly, the defendant‘s sufficiency of the evidence claim fails.
II
The defendant also claims that the court erred in denying his motion to set aside the verdict as to the
We begin by reviewing the legal principles that govern a weight of the evidence claim. ‘‘At the outset, we note that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is not the same as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. A sufficiency claim dispute[s] that the state presented sufficient evidence, if found credible by the jury, to sustain [the defendant‘s] conviction. . . . In contrast, a weight claim does not contend that the state‘s evidence . . . was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . Rather, [it] asserts that the state‘s case . . . was so flimsy as to raise a substantial question regarding the reliability of thе verdict [and that there was a] serious danger that [the defendant] was wrongly convicted. . . . .
‘‘Given that these two types of claims raise fundamentally different issues, the inquiry appropriately undertaken by a court ruling on a sufficiency of the evidence claim differs substantially from that of a court ruling on a weight of the evidence claim. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, a court considers whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a guilty verdict. . . . In doing so, the court does not sit as a [seventh] juror who may cast a vote against the verdict based upon our feeling that some doubt of guilt is shown by the cold printed record. . . . [It] cаnnot substitute its own judgment for that of the jury if there is sufficient evidence to support the jury‘s verdict. . . . Thus, a court will not reweigh the evidence or resolve questions of credibility in determining whether the evidence was sufficient. . . .
‘‘In contrast, a court determining if the verdict is against the weight of the evidence does precisely what a court ruling on a sufficiency claim ought not to do. That is, the court must do just what every juror ought to do in arriving at a verdict. The juror must use all his experience, his knowledge of human nature, his knowledge of human events, past and present, his knowledge of the motives which influence and control human action, and test the evidence in the case according to suсh knowledge and render his verdict accordingly. . . . The trial judge in considering the verdict must do the same . . . and if, in the exercise of all his knowledge from this source, he finds the verdict to be so clearly against the weight of the evidence in the case as to indicate that the jury did not correctly apply the law to the facts in evidence in the case, or were governed by ignorance, prejudice, corruption or partiality, then it is his duty to set aside that verdict and to grant a new trial. . . . In other words, the court specifically is required to act as a [seventh] juror
‘‘Thus, because a court is required to independently assess credibility and assign weight to evidence, a weight of the evidence claim necessarily raises the issue of which courts are competent to perform those tasks. It is well settled that only the judge who presided over the trial where a challenged verdict was returned is legally competent to decide if that verdict was against the weight of the evidence . . . . Consequently, a judge in a later proceeding, such as a direct appeal or a habeas corpus proceeding, is not legally competent to decide such a claim on the basis of the cold printed record before it. . . . The rationale behind this rule is sound: [T]he trial court is uniquely situated to entertain a motion to set aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence because, unlike an appellate court, the trial [court] has had the same opportunity as the jury to view the witnesses, to assess their credibility and to determine the weight that should be given to their evidence. . . . [T]he trial judge can gauge the tenor of the trial, as [an appellate court], on the written record, cannot, and can detect those factors, if any, that could improperly have influenced the jury.‘’ (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Soto, 175 Conn. App. 739, 745–48, 168 A.3d 605, cert. denied, 327 Conn. 970, 173 A.3d 953 (2017).
It necessarily follows that appellate review оf a weight of the evidence claim is greatly circumscribed. Id., 750. ‘‘[T]he proper appellate standard of review when considering the action of a trial court granting or denying a motion to set aside a verdict and a motion for a new trial is the abuse of discretion standard. . . . In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of the court‘s ruling. . . . Reversal is required only where an abuse of discretion is manifest or where injustice appears to have been done. . . . We do not . . . determine whether a conclusion different from the one reached could havе been reached. . . . A verdict must stand if it is one that a jury reasonably could have returned and the trial court has accepted. . . .
‘‘Thus, if asked to review the trial court‘s ruling on a weight of the evidence claim presented to it, an appellate court is not to independently make credibility determinations or assign weight to evidence. Furthermore, our task is not to assess the jury‘s credibility determinations and assignment of weight to evidence. Rather, our task is to review, for an abuse of discretion, the trial court‘s assessment of the jury‘s credibility determinations and assignment of weight to evidence.‘’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 750–51.
The following additional evidence, on which the jury
In the defendant‘s motion to set aside the verdict, he argued that the jury‘s verdict on the reckless burning count was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Specifically, he claimed that his behavior was not reckless because he consciously regarded the risks by carefully planning the conditions under which he would start the fire. On April 9, 2019, the court heard oral argument on the motion. The court rejected the defendant‘s argument, concluding that ‘‘an individual can think about their conduct, but in deciding to pursue a course of conduct, they can, in fact, act recklessly. And here the jury found that that is what happened. The jury found, in accordance with the evidence, that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk. The verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence . . . .‘’ Accordingly, the court denied the motion.
On appeal, the defendant largely seeks to reargue certain evidence relating to the manner in which he ‘‘staged the scene‘‘—evidence that was assessed by the jury. His argument ignores other evidencе necessarily assessed by the jury, including the following. The jury heard evidence that the defendant spread Sterno, an accelerant, around the house at around 2 a.m. while his wife, their children, and his parents were asleep upstairs. He then lit a candle and used it to set a sheet on fire for approximately thirty to sixty seconds within five feet of some of the Sterno. The defendant engaged in such conduct without reading the product‘s warning labels fully, without having any experience using this particular Sterno product, without having a fire extinguisher nearby, and without any other contingency plan in case his plan went awry. Although the defendant testified that he selected the Sterno gel because he thought that he would be able to see and manage it, the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant, in failing to read and abide by the warning label and in failing to have a contingency plan, consciously disre-
The defendant further argues that the cоurt abused its discretion in denying his motion because the court appears to have relied exclusively on the jury‘s verdict and neglected to conduct its own assessment of the evidence. We disagree with the defendant‘s characterization of the court‘s analysis. The court, in denying the defendant‘s motion, concluded that ‘‘an individual can think about their conduct, but in deciding to pursue a course of conduct, they can, in fact, act recklessly‘’ and that the ‘‘jury found, in accordance with the evidence, that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk.‘’ The court then stated its own conclusion that the ‘‘verdict was not against the manifest weight of thе evidence . . . .‘’ These statements indicate that the court independently weighed the evidence and that it did not substitute the jury‘s analysis for its own in accordance with the standard governing a trial court‘s consideration of a weight of the evidence claim.5 See State v. Soto, supra, 175 Conn. App. 747–48.
In sum, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant‘s motion to set aside the verdict as to the reckless burning count on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.