State v. Rhodes
Citations
- 335 Conn. 226
Syllabus
Convicted of, among other crimes, criminal possession of a firearm and having a weapon in a motor vehicle, the defendant appealed. The defen- dant had been driving a car with a passenger, S, a drug dealer with whom the defendant had a long-standing relationship. They drove around for approximately forty-five minutes, stopped at a gas station-conve- nience store, and then drove for another forty-five minutes. The defen- dant then stopped the car in the lane of travel as they approached a large, outdoor social gathering, and S exited the car and fired multiple gunshots from a gun he had been carrying. S then reentered the car and instructed the defendant to drive. Police officers witnessed the shooting, and a high-speed police chase ensued, after which the defen- dant and S were ultimately apprehended. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she possessed a firearm and, therefore, that there was insufficient evi- dence to sustain her conviction of criminal possession of a firearm. The defendant also contended that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction of having a weapon in a motor vehicle. Held: 1. There was sufficient evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant constructively possessed the firearm that S used in the shooting, as the record contained sufficient circumstantial evidence that the defendant knew that the firearm was in the car and that she was in a position to and intended to control the firearm, and, accordingly, this court upheld the defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a firearm: the jury reasonably could have inferred that, by the time of the police chase, the defendant knew that the firearm was in the vehicle, the defendant likely knew that S was a drug dealer and that he, therefore, often carried a gun, the fact that the defendant was driving and thereby controlling the car suggested that she was able to and intended to control the
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that defendant asserting insufficiency claim ‘‘carries a difficult burden’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
- ‘‘[t]he probative value of evidence of flight depends [on] all the facts and circumstances and is a question of fact for the jury’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
- jury is entitled to use common sense, experience, and knowledge of human nature
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Vertefeuille; Prescott
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. Patrick M.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-09-02· cited 42×
- State v. HughesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-11-23· cited 30×
- State v. Roy D. L.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-07-28· cited 23×
- State v. GriffinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-07-22· cited 22×
- State v. LamantiaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-09-03· cited 18×
- State v. DawsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-08-13· cited 17×
- State v. HonschSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-07-19· cited 13×
- State v. HaughwoutSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-07-23· cited 7×
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-02-25· cited 7×
- State v. BemerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-09-29· cited 6×
- State v. Michael R.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-04-11· cited 5×
- State v. ZiolkowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-01-28· cited 3×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-08-13
- State v. DukesConnecticut Appellate Court· 2026-06-09
Cites
123 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1963-01-14· cited 12,871×
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court· 1970-05-18· cited 11,712×
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court· 1970-11-23· cited 9,465×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- Maryland v. PringleSupreme Court· 2003-12-15· cited 1,610×
- United States v. Di ReSupreme Court· 1948-01-19· cited 1,525×
- People v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1992-01-16· cited 653×
- United States v. Larry Allen MyersFifth Circuit· 1977-04-15· cited 481×
- State v. BarberNew Mexico Supreme Court· 2004-05-19· cited 344×
- People v. ManiniNew York Court of Appeals· 1992-03-31· cited 340×
- United States v. William BentvenaSecond Circuit· 1963-06-13· cited 339×
- John B. Janigan v. Frederick B. TaylorFirst Circuit· 1965-05-04· cited 284×
- United States v. Pamela Jones, Katresa Marie Johnson, Mark J. Scott, Jr.Tenth Circuit· 1995-01-04· cited 280×
- State v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-06-03· cited 248×
- State v. SalamonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-07-01· cited 243×
- United States v. Joseph ArnoldSixth Circuit· 2007-05-18· cited 219×
- Rivas v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2001-08-23· cited 215×
- State v. PiskorskiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1979-06-19· cited 212×
- Alberty v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1896-04-20· cited 211×
- Trailways of New England, Inc. v. Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of AmericaSupreme Court· 1965-10-18· cited 211×
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.