2008 Ct. Sup. 9212
No. LLI-CR07-0125152SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Litchfield at Litchfield
May 29, 2008
EXCERPT JUDGES’S RULING — MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
THE HONORABLE RICHARD M. MARANO.
THE COURT: All right. The Court is prepared to rule on the defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.
Madam Clerk, may I have a copy of the information, please.
The defendant, Mr. Simmons, has orally moved for a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal pursuant to Practice Book Section 42-40.
The defendant is charged with one count of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of Connecticut General Statutes Section 53a-71(a)(1), and in the second count, risk of injury to a minor in violation of Connecticut General Statute Section 53-21(a)(2).
The Court addresses the motion on the basis that the evidence does not reasonably permit the finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on count one and count two of the information.
In ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal, the trial Court must determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the crimes proven beyond a reasonable doubt, State versus Kirker, 47 Connecticut Appellate 612 at 619, 1998. That power, however, is limited to a supervisor function.
A determination of whether the evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not require a Court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This familiar standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate CT Page 9213 facts.
In viewing evidence which could yield contrary inferences, the jury is not barred from drawing those inferences consistent with guilt and is not required to draw only those inferences consistent with innocence State v. Brown, 235 Connecticut 502 at pages 510 and 511, 1995.
In this case, Michael Roy has testified for the State along with Victoria Sievel; the complainant “D;” and “M,” the complainant’s father. The defendant has offered Barbara Simmons, Bruce Cronk, Jody Lynott, Veronica Pierce, William Arbour, Kenneth Avery, and Janine Russell. I believe one of the troopers testified for the State.
MR. FLETCHER: If your Honor please, that would be Trooper Justin Rheiner, and through him offered the defendant’s statement.
THE COURT: Exhibits submitted were the photos of the house, front and rear; statement of the defendant taken on March 13, 2007; and from the defendant, the trooper’s report dated March 15, 2007. The Court will not go through the testimony and exhibits individually.
The Court finds that though the entire evidence presented and the inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom does reasonably permit a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to count one of the information charging sexual assault in the second degree in violation of Section 53a-71(a)(1) and count two of the information charging risk of injury to a minor in violation of Section 53-21(a)(2), both counts based on the allegations of the complainant “D.”
Accordingly, the defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal is denied.
Anything else, Mr. Dyer?
MR. DYER: Just one brief correction, Judge. I believe you mentioned Barbara Simmons for the defense. Her name was Debra Simmons.
THE COURT: Debra Simmons. If I did, I misspoke. Thank you.
MR. DYER: Just to correct the record.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Excerpt concluded.)
CT Page 9214 CERTIFICATION
I, Marlene F. Matteau, Court Recording Monitor in and for the State of Connecticut, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the electronic recordings, with reference to the above-entitled matter, heard before the Honorable Richard M. Marano, Judge of the Litchfield Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield, at Litchfield, Connecticut on May 29th, 2008.
Dated at Litchfield, Connecticut, on this 16th day of May 2008.
CT Page 9215