Opinion
SC 20490
07-16-2021
STATE of Connecticut v. Jermain V. RICHARDS
Norman A. Pattis, Bethany, for the appellant (defendant). Kathryn W. Bare, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph T. Corradino, state's attorney, and Ann F. Lawlor, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Norman A. Pattis, Bethany, for the appellant (defendant).
Kathryn W. Bare, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph T. Corradino, state's attorney, and Ann F. Lawlor, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Robinson, C.J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Ecker and Alexander, Js.
PER CURIAM. In this certified appeal, we must consider whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the defendant, Jermain V. Richards, guilty of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), despite the absence of evidence of the manner, means, place, cause, and time of the victim's death. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court's judgment of conviction. We now affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) provides in relevant part: "A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person ...."
The defendant was convicted after a third jury trial, the first two trials having ended in mistrials after hung juries. State v. Richards , 196 Conn. App. 387, 394, 229 A.3d 1157 (2020). The defendant appealed, and the Appellate Court affirmed his conviction. Id., at 413, 229 A.3d 1157. We granted certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the evidence adduced at the defendant's trial was sufficient to support his conviction of murder?" State v. Richards , 335 Conn. 931, 236 A.3d 218 (2020).
The opinion of the Appellate Court thoroughly and accurately reports the facts that the jury might reasonably have found to support the conviction of the defendant. The defendant contends that the jury lacked sufficient evidence to find him guilty of murder. Specifically, he argues that the state failed to prove the manner, means, place, cause, and time of death, and that the inferences the jury apparently drew from the evidence were unreasonable because the state failed to prove any criminal acts committed by the defendant or that he intended to commit such acts.
To the extent the defendant argues that there was no evidence that the victim is, in fact, deceased, we note that the state's chief medical examiner testified that the cause of death was "homicidal violence of an undetermined type" and that the victim's limbs were removed, postmortem, by the use of a sharp instrument. See State v. Richards , supra, 196 Conn. App. at 393, 229 A.3d 1157.
Our examination of the record and briefs, and our consideration of the parties’ arguments, persuades us that we should affirm the Appellate Court's judgment. Because the Appellate Court's well reasoned opinion fully addresses the certified issue, it would serve no purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained in that opinion. We therefore adopt part I of the Appellate Court's opinion as the proper statement of the issue and the applicable law concerning that issue. See, e.g., State v. Buie , 312 Conn. 574, 583, 94 A.3d 608 (2014) ; see also State v. Richards , supra, 196 Conn. App. at 394–407, 229 A.3d 1157.
Additionally, we emphasize two facts that the Appellate Court did not expressly apply in the analysis section of its opinion (part I), although they were noted in the opinion itself. First, not only was the victim last seen at the defendant's residence, but she was seen there within two hours of her last cell phone communication and was in good health. See State v. Richards , supra, 196 Conn. App. at 393–94, 229 A.3d 1157. While the evidence analyzed in part I of the Appellate Court's opinion fully satisfies the sufficiency of the evidence standard, this evidence further supports the jury's conclusion that the defendant intended to cause the victim's death and did in fact cause her death. Second, the defendant missed his work shift, which was scheduled for 3 to 11 p.m. on Sunday, April 21, 2013, the day after the victim disappeared, but he arrived for his second shift that same day, which began at 11 p.m. Id., at 393, 229 A.3d 1157. This evidence further supports the jury's conclusion that the defendant caused the victim's death.
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.