State v. Hazard
Citations
- 201 Conn. App. 46
Syllabus
Convicted of the crime of robbery in the first degree, the defendant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator and that he proved his affirmative defense of inoperability of the weapon used during the robbery. The perpetrator had pointed a gun at the employee on duty at a storage facility, took cash from her and then fled. Police officers searching the nearby area encountered a vehicle that came toward them but then reversed direction and left the area before crashing in a yard. The defendant fled from the crash scene before the police arrived and found cash, a gun and other items in the vehicle, which had been lent to the defendant by his girlfriend hours before the robbery. The storage facility employee described to the police what the defendant was wearing but was unable to identify him when the police brought her to a nearby store where he was arrested shortly after the robbery for a one-on-one identification. Held: 1. There was sufficient evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant was the person who robbed the storage facility; the defendant owned and wore clothing and items similar to that worn by the perpetrator, some of which the police found in bushes near the crime scene and which contained the defendant's DNA, video surveil- lance showed an individual driving to a bush in a vehicle matching that which was owned by the defendant's girlfriend, exiting the vehicle and retreating behind the bush before returning to the vehicle wearing cloth- ing that matched that of the defendant at the time of his arrest, and the police found in the vehicle, which belonged to the defendant's girlfriend, a gun and money that approximated the amount stolen from the stor- age facility. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that his conviction of first degree robbery should be reversed because he proved the affirmative defense that the gun was inoperable at the time o
Judges: DiPentima; Moll; Harper
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. OrtizSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-03-17· cited 98×
- State v. MorganSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-08-02· cited 60×
- State v. LeroySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-01-31· cited 59×
- State v. HolleySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-01-12· cited 51×
- State v. CerilliSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-06-04· cited 44×
- State v. D'ANTUONOSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-03-09· cited 42×
- State v. OsmanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-04-30· cited 40×
- State v. SchafferSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1975-04-08· cited 36×
- State v. FinanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-08-16· cited 34×
- State v. OrtizConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-08-27· cited 24×
- State v. OsmanConnecticut Appellate Court· 1990-04-24· cited 20×
- State v. Carlos P.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2017-04-05· cited 20×
- State v. BillieConnecticut Appellate Court· 2010-09-14· cited 16×
- State v. GonzalezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2016-10-18· cited 13×
- State v. CrosbyConnecticut Appellate Court· 2018-06-05· cited 10×
- Fletcher v. LiebermanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-06-19· cited 9×
- State v. BermudezConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-02-18· cited 8×
- State v. PetersenConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-03-31· cited 7×
- State v. RichardsConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-03-10· cited 6×
- State v. IngramConnecticut Appellate Court· 2011-12-06· cited 5×
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.