Argued
October 16, 2019
Superior
Court, Judicial District of Waterbury, Harmon, J.
Page 1037
Justine F. Miller, assigned counsel, for the appellant
(defendant).
Brett
R. Aiello, special deputy assistant states attorney, with
whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, states attorney, and
David A. Gulick, senior assistant states attorney, for the
appellee (state).
Alvord,
Devlin and Norcott, Js.
OPINION
PER
CURIAM.
[194
Conn.App. 865] The defendant, Jeffrey Villar, appeals from
the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of
unlawful discharge of a firearm in violation of General
Statutes § 53-203, carrying a pistol without a permit in
violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a), reckless
endangerment in the first degree in violation of General
Statutes § 53a-63 (a), and risk of injury to a child in
violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1). He claims that
there was insufficient evidence for the jury to have found
him guilty of those crimes because (1) the state did not
present sufficient evidence to prove that he fired the
gunshot at issue and the complainant had an interest in
seeing the defendant convicted, and (2) the only witness who
testified to the defendants firing the
Page 1038
shot was a codefendant who had an interest in seeing the
defendant convicted. We conclude that there was sufficient
evidence for the jury to reasonably find the defendant guilty
of the charged crimes and, therefore, affirm the trial
courts judgment.
The
following facts reasonably could have been found by the jury
and are relevant to the resolution of this [194 Conn.App.
866] appeal. On September 7, 2015, Waterbury police officers
responded to a report of shots being fired on a residential
street in Waterbury. They were advised that three males were
seen leaving the area where the shots were fired. On their
way to the scene, the officers had driven past three males
but did not approach them. When the officers arrived at the
scene, they questioned the complainant, Nathan Burk, who told
them that three males— two Hispanic males and one white
male— had been at his home, and that he had gotten into
a fight with them. Burk told the officers that one of the
individuals drew a gun and fired into his home. The officers
observed a shell casing in Burks yard and a small hole in
the screen of Burks window.
Subsequently,
two officers went in search of the three males they had
passed earlier, who matched Burks description, and
eventually apprehended them. The three males would be later
identified as the defendant, Brandon Medina, and
Tommy.[1] After the officers apprehended him,
Medina disclosed that he had a weapon, and the officers found
a firearm in his possession. Burk subsequently identified the
defendant as the individual with whom he had fought and who
had fired a gun into his home.
At
trial, Burk testified to the following facts. On the date of
the incident, he lived in Waterbury with his girlfriend and
her five year old daughter, C.[2] At approximately noon,
the defendant contacted Burk to purchase marijuana. Burk
previously had sold marijuana to the defendant approximately
ten times. The defendant arrived at Burks home with two
friends, Medina and Tommy, and all three appeared to be
intoxicated. Once [194 Conn.App. 867] the defendant completed
the marijuana transaction, he asked Burk for a ride to buy a
new tire because the car the defendant was driving had a flat
tire. Burk agreed to give the defendant a ride, but they were
ultimately unsuccessful in purchasing the tire. They then
returned to Burks home; while outside, the defendant
approached Burk, showed him a silver pistol, and asked him if
he wanted to buy it, and Burk declined.
Shortly
thereafter, the defendant and Tommy got into an argument,
which escalated to the two shoving each other. This
altercation worried Burk, who then called his sister to see
if he could bring C over to her home; when she agreed, he got
C and left the premises. When he and C returned to the home a
few hours later, the defendant and his friends were not
present. At around 7 p.m., however, Burk noticed that they
had returned outside and were even more intoxicated than
before. He went outside and told the defendant that he had
called a friend, ...