sufficiency of evidence claim in Connecticut

1991“In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim on appeal the question presented is whether, viewing the evidence favorably to sustaining the verdict, the trier could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Zayas, 195 Conn. 611, 620 , 490 A.2d 68 (1985).

1991“In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim on appeal the question presented is whether, viewing the evidence favorably to sustaining the verdict, the trier could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Zayas, 195 Conn. 611, 620 , 490 A.2d 68 (1985).

1990“In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim on appeal the question presented is whether, viewing the evidence favorably to sustaining the verdict, the trier could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Zayas, 195 Conn. 611, 620 , 490 A.2d 68 (1985); State v. Haddad, 189 Conn. 383, 387 , 456 A.2d 316 (1983).

1990“In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim on appeal the question presented is whether, viewing the evidence favorably to sustaining the verdict, the trier could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Zayas, 195 Conn. 611, 620 , 490 A.2d 68 (1985); State v. Haddad, 189 Conn. 383, 387 , 456 A.2d 316 (1983).

2007In the companion cases of State v. DeJesus, 282 Conn. 783, 786 , 928 A.2d 533 (2007), and State v. Rivera, 282 Conn. 779, 782-83 , 928 A.2d 531 (2007), which were released on the same date as this opinion, we dismissed the appeals on the ground that certification improvidently had been granted. 4 The Appellate Court addressed the defendant’s sufficiency of evidence claim, even though it was reversing the judgment on the basis of instructional error, because that claim, “ ‘if successful, would necessitate the entry of a judgment of acquittal ....’” State v. Sanchez, supra, 92 Conn. App. 118 n.3

2007In the companion cases of State v. DeJesus, 282 Conn. 783, 786 , 928 A.2d 533 (2007), and State v. Rivera, 282 Conn. 779, 782-83 , 928 A.2d 531 (2007), which were released on the same date as this opinion, we dismissed the appeals on the ground that certification improvidently had been granted. 4 The Appellate Court addressed the defendant’s sufficiency of evidence claim, even though it was reversing the judgment on the basis of instructional error, because that claim, “ ‘if successful, would necessitate the entry of a judgment of acquittal ....’” State v. Sanchez, supra, 92 Conn. App. 118 n.3

1986Schatz then testified that she had said, while pointing to the defendant’s picture, “That’s Tony, the son of a bitch that robbed me.” I The defendant first claims that because Blaszkiewicz did not identify him as one of the robbers at trial, there was insufficient evidence to place him at the scene of the crime and to sustain his conviction. “ ‘In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim on appeal the question presented is whether, viewing the evidence favorably to sustaining the verdict, the trier could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn

1985“In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim on appeal the question presented is whether, viewing the evidence favorably to sustaining the verdict, the trier could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Zayas, 195 Conn. 611, 620 , 490 A.2d 68 (1985); State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 255 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.

1986Schatz then testified that she had said, while pointing to the defendant’s picture, “That’s Tony, the son of a bitch that robbed me.” I The defendant first claims that because Blaszkiewicz did not identify him as one of the robbers at trial, there was insufficient evidence to place him at the scene of the crime and to sustain his conviction. “ ‘In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim on appeal the question presented is whether, viewing the evidence favorably to sustaining the verdict, the trier could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn

1985“In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim on appeal the question presented is whether, viewing the evidence favorably to sustaining the verdict, the trier could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Zayas, 195 Conn. 611, 620 , 490 A.2d 68 (1985); State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 255 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.

1986Schatz then testified that she had said, while pointing to the defendant’s picture, “That’s Tony, the son of a bitch that robbed me.” I The defendant first claims that because Blaszkiewicz did not identify him as one of the robbers at trial, there was insufficient evidence to place him at the scene of the crime and to sustain his conviction. “ ‘In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim on appeal the question presented is whether, viewing the evidence favorably to sustaining the verdict, the trier could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn

1985“In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim on appeal the question presented is whether, viewing the evidence favorably to sustaining the verdict, the trier could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Zayas, 195 Conn. 611, 620 , 490 A.2d 68 (1985); State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 255 , 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084 , 104 S. Ct. 1455 , 79 L.

1986Schatz then testified that she had said, while pointing to the defendant’s picture, “That’s Tony, the son of a bitch that robbed me.” I The defendant first claims that because Blaszkiewicz did not identify him as one of the robbers at trial, there was insufficient evidence to place him at the scene of the crime and to sustain his conviction. “ ‘In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim on appeal the question presented is whether, viewing the evidence favorably to sustaining the verdict, the trier could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn

1986Schatz then testified that she had said, while pointing to the defendant’s picture, “That’s Tony, the son of a bitch that robbed me.” I The defendant first claims that because Blaszkiewicz did not identify him as one of the robbers at trial, there was insufficient evidence to place him at the scene of the crime and to sustain his conviction. “ ‘In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim on appeal the question presented is whether, viewing the evidence favorably to sustaining the verdict, the trier could have reasonably concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn

2000Id.

1996Id.

1995The substantial evidence rule "is similar to the sufficiency of evidence standard applied in judicial review of jury verdicts." Id., 541 .

1992Moreover, this court notes that in discussing the "substantial evidence" requirement which governs inland-wetland appeals, Huck v. Inland Wetlands Watercourses Agency, 203 Conn. 525 , 539 , 525 A.2d 940 (1987), and administrative procedure act appeals under General Statutes 4-183 (j)(5), the Supreme Court has compared it to the sufficiency of evidence standard.

1986Ed. 2d 772 (1984).” State v. Thompson, 197 Conn. 67, 74 , 495 A.2d 1054 (1985).

1986Ed. 2d 772 (1984).” State v. Thompson, 197 Conn. 67, 74 , 495 A.2d 1054 (1985).

2021We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the jury’s verdict of guilty.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Capasso, supra, 203 Conn. App. 339 . 9 Sergeant Joseph Flynn testified that the purpose of a firearm in the sale of narcotics was ‘‘to protect [the dealer] . . . [his] product, [and his] money . . . .’’ 10 General Statutes § 53-21 (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the . . . health of such child is like

2021We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the jury’s verdict of guilty.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Capasso, supra, 203 Conn. App. 339 . 9 Sergeant Joseph Flynn testified that the purpose of a firearm in the sale of narcotics was ‘‘to protect [the dealer] . . . [his] product, [and his] money . . . .’’ 10 General Statutes § 53-21 (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the . . . health of such child is like

2008Ten years later, the United States Supreme Court confronted the issue of whether the double jeopardy clause similarly bars retrial of a defendant “when a reviewing court determines that a defendant’s conviction must be reversed because evidence was erroneously admitted against him, and also concludes that without the inadmissible evidence there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction . . . .” Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 40 , 109 S. Ct. 285 , 102 L.

2008Ten years later, the United States Supreme Court confronted the issue of whether the double jeopardy clause similarly bars retrial of a defendant “when a reviewing court determines that a defendant’s conviction must be reversed because evidence was erroneously admitted against him, and also concludes that without the inadmissible evidence there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction . . . .” Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 40 , 109 S. Ct. 285 , 102 L.

2007In the companion cases of State v. DeJesus, 282 Conn. 783, 786 , 928 A.2d 533 (2007), and State v. Rivera, 282 Conn. 779, 782-83 , 928 A.2d 531 (2007), which were released on the same date as this opinion, we dismissed the appeals on the ground that certification improvidently had been granted. 4 The Appellate Court addressed the defendant’s sufficiency of evidence claim, even though it was reversing the judgment on the basis of instructional error, because that claim, “ ‘if successful, would necessitate the entry of a judgment of acquittal ....’” State v. Sanchez, supra, 92 Conn. App. 118 n.3

2007In the companion cases of State v. DeJesus, 282 Conn. 783, 786 , 928 A.2d 533 (2007), and State v. Rivera, 282 Conn. 779, 782-83 , 928 A.2d 531 (2007), which were released on the same date as this opinion, we dismissed the appeals on the ground that certification improvidently had been granted. 4 The Appellate Court addressed the defendant’s sufficiency of evidence claim, even though it was reversing the judgment on the basis of instructional error, because that claim, “ ‘if successful, would necessitate the entry of a judgment of acquittal ....’” State v. Sanchez, supra, 92 Conn. App. 118 n.3

2007In the companion cases of State v. DeJesus, 282 Conn. 783, 786 , 928 A.2d 533 (2007), and State v. Rivera, 282 Conn. 779, 782-83 , 928 A.2d 531 (2007), which were released on the same date as this opinion, we dismissed the appeals on the ground that certification improvidently had been granted. 4 The Appellate Court addressed the defendant’s sufficiency of evidence claim, even though it was reversing the judgment on the basis of instructional error, because that claim, “ ‘if successful, would necessitate the entry of a judgment of acquittal ....’” State v. Sanchez, supra, 92 Conn. App. 118 n.3

2007In the companion cases of State v. DeJesus, 282 Conn. 783, 786 , 928 A.2d 533 (2007), and State v. Rivera, 282 Conn. 779, 782-83 , 928 A.2d 531 (2007), which were released on the same date as this opinion, we dismissed the appeals on the ground that certification improvidently had been granted. 4 The Appellate Court addressed the defendant’s sufficiency of evidence claim, even though it was reversing the judgment on the basis of instructional error, because that claim, “ ‘if successful, would necessitate the entry of a judgment of acquittal ....’” State v. Sanchez, supra, 92 Conn. App. 118 n.3

2003Gaudio v. Griffin Health Services Corp., 249 Conn. 523, 533-34 , 733 A.2d 197 (1999); Purzycki v. Fairfield, 244 Conn. 101, 112-13 , 708 A.2d 937 (1998). “[I]t is not the function of this court to sit as the seventh juror when we review the sufficiency of the evidence . . . rather, we must determine, in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, whether the totality of the evidence, including reasonable inferences therefrom, supports the jury’s verdict ....

2003Gaudio v. Griffin Health Services Corp., 249 Conn. 523, 533-34 , 733 A.2d 197 (1999); Purzycki v. Fairfield, 244 Conn. 101, 112-13 , 708 A.2d 937 (1998). “[I]t is not the function of this court to sit as the seventh juror when we review the sufficiency of the evidence . . . rather, we must determine, in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, whether the totality of the evidence, including reasonable inferences therefrom, supports the jury’s verdict ....

2003Gaudio v. Griffin Health Services Corp., 249 Conn. 523, 533-34 , 733 A.2d 197 (1999); Purzycki v. Fairfield, 244 Conn. 101, 112-13 , 708 A.2d 937 (1998). “[I]t is not the function of this court to sit as the seventh juror when we review the sufficiency of the evidence . . . rather, we must determine, in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, whether the totality of the evidence, including reasonable inferences therefrom, supports the jury’s verdict ....

2003Gaudio v. Griffin Health Services Corp., 249 Conn. 523, 533-34 , 733 A.2d 197 (1999); Purzycki v. Fairfield, 244 Conn. 101, 112-13 , 708 A.2d 937 (1998). “[I]t is not the function of this court to sit as the seventh juror when we review the sufficiency of the evidence . . . rather, we must determine, in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, whether the totality of the evidence, including reasonable inferences therefrom, supports the jury’s verdict ....

2000State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578 , 603 (1987).

2000In State v. Cansler, 54 Conn. App. 819, 836 , 738 A.2d 1095 (1999), we stated that “[t]he standard of review for a sufficiency of evidence claim is well settled.

2000In State v. Cansler, 54 Conn. App. 819, 836 , 738 A.2d 1095 (1999), we stated that “[t]he standard of review for a sufficiency of evidence claim is well settled.

1990Id.

1990State v. Ruth, 16 Conn. App. 148, 153-54 , 547 A.2d 548 (1988), cert. denied, 209 Conn. 827 , 552 A.2d 434 (1989).

1990State v. Ruth, 16 Conn. App. 148, 153-54 , 547 A.2d 548 (1988), cert. denied, 209 Conn. 827 , 552 A.2d 434 (1989).

1990State v. Ruth, 16 Conn. App. 148, 153-54 , 547 A.2d 548 (1988), cert. denied, 209 Conn. 827 , 552 A.2d 434 (1989).

1990State v. Ruth, 16 Conn. App. 148, 153-54 , 547 A.2d 548 (1988), cert. denied, 209 Conn. 827 , 552 A.2d 434 (1989).