Opinion
(6165)
On the defendant's appeal to this court from his convictions of the crimes of criminal possession of a pistol and carrying a pistol without a permit, held that there was no merit to the claims of error raised by the defendant.
Argued May 11, 1988
Decision released July 26, 1988
Amended information charging the defendant with the crimes of criminal possession of a pistol, threatening, assault in the third degree and carrying a pistol without a permit, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, geographical area number two and tried to the jury before Bingham, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty of criminal possession of a pistol and carrying a pistol without a permit, from which the defendant appealed to this court. No error.
John A. Forbes, Jr., assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Vincent J. Dooley, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Gerald Eisenman, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction of criminal possession of a pistol in violation of General Statutes 53a-217 (a) and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes 29-35. On appeal, the defendant raises the following claims of error: (1) the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motions for acquittal and for a new trial based on claims of prosecutorial and juror misconduct; (2) the court erred in ruling, in response to the defendant's motion in limine, that consecutive sentences could be imposed upon convictions for carrying a pistol without a permit and criminal possession of a pistol; (3) that his convictions under General Statutes 29-35 and 53-217 (a) were in violation of the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States constitution; and (4) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for the crimes of which he was convicted.
We need not consider the defendant's second claim of error since, at sentencing, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of five years for each charge of which the defendant was convicted. The claim of error regarding the court's ruling on the motion in limine that the defendant "could" be sentenced consecutively is a moot issue for the purposes of this appeal.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record of the present case and find each and every claim of error to be without merit. The defendant has not successfully borne the burden of showing the manner in which either the allegedly tainted language of the prosecutor or the alleged improper juror misconduct prejudiced him or denied him his right to a fair trial. State v. Ubaldi, 190 Conn. 559, 562, 462 A.2d 1001, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 916, 104 S.Ct. 280, 78 L.Ed.2d 259 (1983); see also state v. Nowakowski, 188 Conn. 620, 452 A.2d 938 (1982); State v. Kluttz, 9 Conn. App. 686, 521 A.2d 178 (1987).
Similarly, when construing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict, we find it clear that the jury could reasonably have concluded, upon the facts established and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom, that the cumulative effect of the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Little, 194 Conn. 665, 671, 485 A.2d 913 (1984); State v. Iovieno, 14 Conn. App. 710, 713, 543 A.2d 766 (1988).
Finally, we find that under the holding of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), the defendant has not been denied protection against multiple trials and multiple punishments for the same offense under the double jeopardy clause. See also State v. Rawls, 198 Conn. 111, 120, 502 A.2d 374 (1985); State v. Wright, 197 Conn. 588, 592-93, 500 A.2d 547 (1985).