· 11/22/2022

State v. Ares

Citations

  • 345 Conn. 290

Syllabus

Convicted, after a bench trial, of the crimes of first degree arson, first degree reckless endangerment, and risk of injury to a child in connection with a fire at a multifamily residence where the defendant lived, the defendant appealed to this court. After getting into an argument with his stepfather on the first floor of the residence, the defendant was forced out of the building by one of his stepbrothers, shortly after which the defendant set fire to a mattress on the front porch. The fire engulfed the building, but all of the occupants of the residence were evacuated, including four children who were inside a second floor apartment. The state subsequently charged the defendant with four counts of risk of injury to a child under the act prong of the risk of injury statute (§ 53-21 (a) (1)), alleging, in each count, that the defendant ''did an act likely to impair the health [or] morals of a child.'' In finding the defendant guilty on each of those four counts, the trial court concluded that he had ''placed each child in a situation . . . likely to injure the child's physical health'' by intentionally setting the fire. On the defendant's appeal from the judgment of conviction, held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of risk of injury to a child under the act prong of § 53-21 (a) (1) and that the act prong was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him, which were based on his assertion that the state had failed to adduce proof that he had perpetrated an act directly on the children in the second floor apartment: a. The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support a conviction of risk of injury to a child under the act prong of § 53-21 (a) (1), as that evidence, and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, demonstrated that the defendant's decision to set fire to the mattress on the front porch resulted in a risk of direct, physical harm to the four children in the second flo

Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.