Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Hayward

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

December 20, 2016

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
MARK HAYWARD

          Argued September 7, 2016

         Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Blawie, J.

          Matthew C. Eagan, assigned counsel, with whom were Michael S. Taylor, assigned counsel, and, on the brief, James P. Sexton, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

          Adam E. Mattei, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, state's attorney, and Cornelius P. Kelly, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

          Lavine, Mullins and Mihalakos, Js.

          OPINION

          MIHALAKOS, J.

         The defendant, Mark Hayward, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119 and 53a-122 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to permanently deprive the victim of his property. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The victim, Ronald Runk, met the defendant in September, 2008. After the victim told the defendant that he had written two books and recorded music, the defendant claimed that he was in the business of marketing and distributing books like those of the victim and that he was interested in selling records. Consequently, the defendant and the victim entered into a written agreement whereby the defendant agreed to market one of the victim's books. The defendant also became involved in selling the victim's record.

         In December, 2008, the defendant and the victim discussed the defendant's limited liability company, Mark I Group, which was in the business of marketing corporate gifts. Following these discussions, the victim agreed to invest $34, 000 in the Mark I Group.

         Shortly thereafter, the defendant met with the president of Steiner Direct, a nationwide sports memorabilia company. In September, 2009, after developing a prototype of a keychain filled with dirt from Yankee Stadium, the defendant and Steiner Direct entered into a formal agreement for the manufacturing and selling of key-chains. The defendant informed the victim of the agreement.

         Beginning in February, 2009, the defendant began to ask the victim for money beyond the $34, 000 invest-ment.[1] In an e-mail dated February 12, 2009, the defendant asked the victim for $2500 to market the victim's book. The victim wired $2500 to the defendant's Mark I Group account. In an e-mail dated February 19, 2009, the defendant asked the victim for $6500, which he claimed was needed to pay backdated taxes on his Barclays Bank account containing over $1.2 million and to pay for airfare so that the defendant could travel to London to access the funds. The defendant stated that the $6500 loan would be a repayable loan against the Barclays Bank funds. The victim wired $6500 to the Mark I Group account. In an e-mail dated February 25, 2009, the defendant asked the victim for $3200, claiming that the bank gave the defendant the wrong details and that the amount needed to pay the taxes was $6700. The victim wired $3200 to the Mark I Group account.

         Sometime after the February 25, 2009 e-mail, the defendant showed the victim a letter purporting to be from Carl Hynes, the Premier Operations Director of

         International Accounts at Barclays Bank. Dated April 4, 2009, the letter stated that the Barclays Bank account contained $1, 223, 000 and that an advance of $30, 000 was to be wired to the Mark I Group account on May 2, 2009.

         On April 11, 2009, the defendant informed the victim that he needed $2750 because the defendant had miscalculated the mold cost of the keychains, and, therefore, he was short $2750. The defendant stated that he would give the victim a check for $2750, dated May 3, 2009, when he expected the $30, 000 from his Barclays Bank account to clear. The victim wired $2750 to the Mark I Group account. On April 16, 2009, the defendant asked the victim for $3850, stating that the defendant had not accounted for the gift box for the keychains. The victim wired $3850 to the Mark I Group account. On April 23, 2009, the defendant asked the victim for $6000, stating that he needed the money to start promoting the key-chains and to eat until ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.