State v. Simmons
Citations
- 352 Conn. 556
Syllabus
Convicted of murder, home invasion, and burglary in the first degree, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the trial court had improperly declined to instruct the jury on his third-party culpability defense. Held: The state presented sufficient evidence to satisfy its burden of establishing the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as it was reasonable and logical for the jury to infer that the defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes of which he was convicted on the basis of certain video surveillance footage and forensic evidence presented at trial, as well as certain contradic- tory statements that he had made during his interviews with the police. Contrary to the defendant's assertion, it was of no consequence that the jury could have construed the evidence consistently with a casual visit to the victim's home, as he had claimed during one of his interviews with the police, because the jury was not barred from drawing those inferences consistent with guilt and was not required to draw only those inferences consistent with innocence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to instruct the jury on the defendant's third-party culpability defense, which was premised on his argument that a certain DNA profile found on a bloody hammer found near the victim's body directly connected an unknown male to the crimes. Although a bloody hammer found near the victim's body was the likely the murder weapon and therefore had a close and proximate relationship to the murder, the video surveillance footage, the results of the police investiga- tion, and the quotidian nature of the hammer led this court to conclude that the totality of the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to permit a reasonable juror to infer that a third party was responsible for the vic- tim's murder. There was no merit to the defendant's claim that certain of the prosec
Judges: Mullins; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy; Bright
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 58,288×
- State v. SinghSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-03-26· cited 212×
- State v. FauciSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-04-10· cited 161×
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-10-28· cited 147×
- State v. LusterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-08-15· cited 92×
- State v. ArroyoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-12-11· cited 90×
- State v. CerretaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-05-21· cited 67×
- State v. Chasity WestSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-07-26· cited 64×
- State v. HedgeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-08-03· cited 62×
- Barron-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2005-11-28· cited 62×
- State v. OttoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-06-05· cited 58×
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-05-22· cited 51×
- State v. Patrick M.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-09-02· cited 42×
- State v. JacksonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-04-17· cited 40×
- State v. Courtney G.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-06-21· cited 30×
- State v. GomesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-01-26· cited 23×
- State v. AshbySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-08-06· cited 19×
- State v. DiazSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-04-09· cited 17×
- State v. AbrahamSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-05-31· cited 17×
- State v. DabateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-03-11· cited 15×
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.