State v. Goode

Citations

• 208 Conn. App. 198

Syllabus

Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crime of criminal damage to a landlord's property in the first degree, the defendant appealed to this court claiming that the state presented insufficient evidence to establish the element of specific intent. The defendant entered into a residential lease with the victim for a property in Windsor. Subsequently, the victim went to the property during the lease term and discovered that it was damaged. The victim informed the defendant that he wanted to return with a home improvement contractor to estimate the damage to the property. The defendant refused to allow the victim subsequent access to the property, and, when the victim and the contractor eventually returned, a police officer had to accompany them. Held that the defendant could not prevail on his claim that the state presented insufficient evidence to establish that he specifically intended to damage the victim's property: the state produced testimonial and photographic evidence of the substantial dam- age to the entirety of the victim's property, and this severe damage provided the jury with a basis to reasonably find the necessary specific intent to find the defendant guilty, and the jury reasonably could have inferred, from the extent of the damage, that the damage was not caused by accident or neglect; moreover, the defendant's conduct after damag- ing the victim's property indicated his consciousness of guilt, which the jury could have relied on to infer his specific intent. Argued September 9—officially released October 5, 2021