State v. Hanks
39 Conn. App. 333, 665 A.2d 102, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 410 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for an attempt crime can be sustained by circumstantial evidence showing that a defendant's coordinated actions, when viewed in their totality, constitute a 'substantial step' strongly corroborative of the criminal purpose, moving beyond mere preparation.
Facts:
- On January 16, 1993, Correction Officer Gary DuBois was on duty at the community correctional center in Bridgeport when he was lured to an inmate's cell.
- DuBois was attacked from behind by inmates John Baldwin and Curtis Davis, who took his keys and body alarm.
- Defendant Jose Roque joined the assault by punching DuBois, and then proceeded to the central guard bubble to operate the electronic door controls for the cell block.
- Defendant Ronell Hanks kicked DuBois and was then instructed to act as a lookout for other correction officers.
- The inmates dragged the injured DuBois into a cell to incapacitate him.
- Other officers later discovered that a screen on a window in the dayroom, which led directly to an outside yard, had been bent upwards.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendants Jose Roque and Ronell Hanks were tried by a jury in a Connecticut trial court.
- The jury returned guilty verdicts against both defendants for assault in the first degree, assault of a correction employee, attempted escape in the first degree, and rioting.
- Defendant Roque was also convicted of conspiracy to commit assault and escape.
- Following the entry of judgments of conviction, the defendants appealed to the Appellate Court of Connecticut, challenging, among other things, the sufficiency of the evidence.
- Roque is the appellant for the conspiracy conviction; both Roque and Hanks are appellants for the other convictions. The State of Connecticut is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support a conviction for attempted escape when it shows that the defendants, as part of a group, assaulted a correction officer, took his keys, gained control of the cell block's doors, acted as a lookout, and damaged a window leading outside?
Opinions:
Majority - Schaller, J.
Yes. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for attempted escape. Under General Statutes § 53a-49, a person is guilty of an attempt when they intentionally take a 'substantial step' in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of a crime. This conduct must be 'strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose.' The coordinated actions of the defendants—assaulting the guard, stealing his keys, Roque's operation of the door controls from the bubble, Hanks's role as a lookout, and the bent window screen—collectively constitute a substantial step. When viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the jury could have reasonably concluded from this cumulative circumstantial evidence that the defendants' actions went beyond mere preparation and were part of a planned escape.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that intent and a 'substantial step' for an attempt crime can be proven entirely through circumstantial evidence. It illustrates how a series of coordinated actions can be pieced together by a jury to establish a criminal plan, even if each individual action, viewed in isolation, might seem ambiguous. The court's deference to the jury's findings by viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution highlights the high standard appellants must meet when challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.
