insufficiency claim in Connecticut

2021The defendant did not raise this insufficiency claim in the trial court, but his unpreserved claim is nonetheless reviewable under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239– 40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).

2021The defendant did not raise this insufficiency claim in the trial court, but his unpreserved claim is nonetheless reviewable under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239– 40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).

1994We then decide whether, upon the facts thus established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trial court or the jury could reasonably have concluded that the cumulative effect of the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 402-403 , 618 A.2d 1347 (1993); State v. Jarrett, 218 Conn. 766, 770-71 , 591 A.2d 1225 (1991); State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 253 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.

1994We then decide whether, upon the facts thus established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trial court or the jury could reasonably have concluded that the cumulative effect of the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 402-403 , 618 A.2d 1347 (1993); State v. Jarrett, 218 Conn. 766, 770-71 , 591 A.2d 1225 (1991); State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 253 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.

1994We then decide whether, upon the facts thus established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trial court or the jury could reasonably have concluded that the cumulative effect of the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 402-403 , 618 A.2d 1347 (1993); State v. Jarrett, 218 Conn. 766, 770-71 , 591 A.2d 1225 (1991); State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 253 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.

1994We then decide whether, upon the facts thus established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trial court or the jury could reasonably have concluded that the cumulative effect of the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 402-403 , 618 A.2d 1347 (1993); State v. Jarrett, 218 Conn. 766, 770-71 , 591 A.2d 1225 (1991); State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 253 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.

1994We then decide whether, upon the facts thus established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trial court or the jury could reasonably have concluded that the cumulative effect of the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 402-403 , 618 A.2d 1347 (1993); State v. Jarrett, 218 Conn. 766, 770-71 , 591 A.2d 1225 (1991); State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 253 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.

1993We then decide whether, upon the facts thus established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trial court or the jury could reasonably have concluded that the cumulative effect of the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 402-403 , 618 A.2d 1347 (1993); State v. Jarrett, 218 Conn. 766, 770-71 , 591 A.2d 1225 (1991); State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 253 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.

1994We then decide whether, upon the facts thus established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trial court or the jury could reasonably have concluded that the cumulative effect of the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 402-403 , 618 A.2d 1347 (1993); State v. Jarrett, 218 Conn. 766, 770-71 , 591 A.2d 1225 (1991); State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 253 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.

1993We then decide whether, upon the facts thus established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trial court or the jury could reasonably have concluded that the cumulative effect of the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 402-403 , 618 A.2d 1347 (1993); State v. Jarrett, 218 Conn. 766, 770-71 , 591 A.2d 1225 (1991); State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 253 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.

1994We then decide whether, upon the facts thus established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trial court or the jury could reasonably have concluded that the cumulative effect of the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 402-403 , 618 A.2d 1347 (1993); State v. Jarrett, 218 Conn. 766, 770-71 , 591 A.2d 1225 (1991); State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 253 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.

1994We then decide whether, upon the facts thus established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trial court or the jury could reasonably have concluded that the cumulative effect of the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 402-403 , 618 A.2d 1347 (1993); State v. Jarrett, 218 Conn. 766, 770-71 , 591 A.2d 1225 (1991); State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 253 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.

1994We then decide whether, upon the facts thus established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trial court or the jury could reasonably have concluded that the cumulative effect of the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”’ State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 402-403 , 618 A.2d 1347 (1993); State v. Jarrett, 218 Conn. 766, 770-71 , 591 A.2d 1225 (1991); State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 253 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.

1993We then decide whether, upon the facts thus established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, the trial court or the jury could reasonably have concluded that the cumulative effect of the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 402-403 , 618 A.2d 1347 (1993); State v. Jarrett, 218 Conn. 766, 770-71 , 591 A.2d 1225 (1991); State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 253 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.

2019Each inference of fact supporting the verdict ‘‘need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taupier, 330 Conn. 149, 187 , 193 A.3d 1 (2018), cert. denied, U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1188 , 203 L.

2019Each inference of fact supporting the verdict ‘‘need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taupier, 330 Conn. 149, 187 , 193 A.3d 1 (2018), cert. denied, U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1188 , 203 L.

2019Each inference of fact supporting the verdict ‘‘need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taupier, 330 Conn. 149, 187 , 193 A.3d 1 (2018), cert. denied, U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1188 , 203 L.

2019Each inference of fact supporting the verdict ‘‘need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taupier, 330 Conn. 149, 187 , 193 A.3d 1 (2018), cert. denied, U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1188 , 203 L.

2018Id. *123 In rejecting the defendant's insufficiency claim, our Supreme Court stated: "We cannot agree with the defendant's position ... that the use of force was not 'in the course of' the attempted robbery because the assault of the victim occurred subsequent to the demand for money.

2018In this case, however, because the defendant's insufficiency claim is founded on his constitutional claims, we will address those claims first. 4 "[A] defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation ... exists and ... deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has fa

2018In this case, however, because the defendant's insufficiency claim is founded on his constitutional claims, we will address those claims first. 4 "[A] defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation ... exists and ... deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has fa

2018In this case, however, because the defendant's insufficiency claim is founded on his constitutional claims, we will address those claims first. 4 "[A] defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation ... exists and ... deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has fa

2018In this case, however, because the defendant's insufficiency claim is founded on his constitutional claims, we will address those claims first. 4 "[A] defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation ... exists and ... deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has fa

2016The thrust of the defendant’s insufficiency claim is that this strand was lacking and that its absence rendered the state’s case against him threadbare.3 ‘‘It is black letter law that in any criminal prosecution, the state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s identity as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fleming, 111 Conn. App. 337, 343 , 958 A.2d 1271 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 903 , 962 A.2d 794 (2009).

2016The thrust of the defendant’s insufficiency claim is that this strand was lacking and that its absence rendered the state’s case against him threadbare.3 ‘‘It is black letter law that in any criminal prosecution, the state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s identity as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fleming, 111 Conn. App. 337, 343 , 958 A.2d 1271 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 903 , 962 A.2d 794 (2009).

2016The thrust of the defendant’s insufficiency claim is that this strand was lacking and that its absence rendered the state’s case against him threadbare.3 ‘‘It is black letter law that in any criminal prosecution, the state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s identity as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fleming, 111 Conn. App. 337, 343 , 958 A.2d 1271 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 903 , 962 A.2d 794 (2009).

2016The thrust of the defendant’s insufficiency claim is that this strand was lacking and that its absence rendered the state’s case against him threadbare.3 ‘‘It is black letter law that in any criminal prosecution, the state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s identity as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fleming, 111 Conn. App. 337, 343 , 958 A.2d 1271 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 903 , 962 A.2d 794 (2009).

2011As we repeatedly have observed, a probation violation case is a civil case, with the state bearing the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence. 9 In such cases, the state and the defendant “share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion. . . . [B]ecause we . . . assign the risk of error almost equally, we require only a modicum of subjective certitude on the part of the fact finder: [as] long as the [court] is persuaded that the [state’s] assertions are probably more true . . . the [state] has met [its] burden of persuasion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rizzo

2011As we repeatedly have observed, a probation violation case is a civil case, with the state bearing the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence. 9 In such cases, the state and the defendant “share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion. . . . [B]ecause we . . . assign the risk of error almost equally, we require only a modicum of subjective certitude on the part of the fact finder: [as] long as the [court] is persuaded that the [state’s] assertions are probably more true . . . the [state] has met [its] burden of persuasion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rizzo

2011“The first two [prongs of Golding] involve a determination of whether the claim is reviewable; the second two . . . involve a determination of whether the defendant may prevail.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cutler, 293 Conn. 303, 325 , 977 A.2d 209 (2009). 4 We also note that although the defendant has raised an insufficiency claim in regard to the state’s evidence of intent to harass, he has failed to raise a formal insufficiency claim in regard to the evidence of harassing conduct. 5 The state argues in opposition that the defendant’s first amendment rights were not implicat

2011“The first two [prongs of Golding] involve a determination of whether the claim is reviewable; the second two . . . involve a determination of whether the defendant may prevail.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cutler, 293 Conn. 303, 325 , 977 A.2d 209 (2009). 4 We also note that although the defendant has raised an insufficiency claim in regard to the state’s evidence of intent to harass, he has failed to raise a formal insufficiency claim in regard to the evidence of harassing conduct. 5 The state argues in opposition that the defendant’s first amendment rights were not implicat

2008It is . . . the absolute right and responsibility of the jury to weigh conflicting evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. . . . [T]he [jury] can . . . decide what—all, none or some—of a witness’ testimony to accept or reject. . . . [QJuestions of whether to believe or to disbelieve a competent witness are beyond our review . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ayuso, 105 Conn. App. 305, 334-35 , 937 A.2d 1211 , cert. denied, 286 Conn. 911 , 944 A.2d 983 (2008).

2008It is . . . the absolute right and responsibility of the jury to weigh conflicting evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. . . . [T]he [jury] can . . . decide what—all, none or some—of a witness’ testimony to accept or reject. . . . [QJuestions of whether to believe or to disbelieve a competent witness are beyond our review . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ayuso, 105 Conn. App. 305, 334-35 , 937 A.2d 1211 , cert. denied, 286 Conn. 911 , 944 A.2d 983 (2008).

2008It is . . . the absolute right and responsibility of the jury to weigh conflicting evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. . . . [T]he [jury] can . . . decide what—all, none or some—of a witness’ testimony to accept or reject. . . . [QJuestions of whether to believe or to disbelieve a competent witness are beyond our review . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ayuso, 105 Conn. App. 305, 334-35 , 937 A.2d 1211 , cert. denied, 286 Conn. 911 , 944 A.2d 983 (2008).

2008It is . . . the absolute right and responsibility of the jury to weigh conflicting evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. . . . [T]he [jury] can . . . decide what—all, none or some—of a witness’ testimony to accept or reject. . . . [QJuestions of whether to believe or to disbelieve a competent witness are beyond our review . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ayuso, 105 Conn. App. 305, 334-35 , 937 A.2d 1211 , cert. denied, 286 Conn. 911 , 944 A.2d 983 (2008).

2005“In State v. Whelan, [ 200 Conn. 743 , 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994 , 107 S. Ct. 597 , 93 L.

2005“In State v. Whelan, [ 200 Conn. 743 , 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994 , 107 S. Ct. 597 , 93 L.

2005“In State v. Whelan, [ 200 Conn. 743 , 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994 , 107 S. Ct. 597 , 93 L.

2005“In State v. Whelan, [ 200 Conn. 743 , 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994 , 107 S. Ct. 597 , 93 L.

2005“In State v. Whelan, [ 200 Conn. 743 , 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994 , 107 S. Ct. 597 , 93 L.