Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

123 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.