Argued
October 16, 2019
Procedural
History
Substitute
information charging the defendant with the crimes of
unlawful discharge of a firearm, carrying a pistol without a
permit and risk of injury to a child, and with two counts of
the crime of reckless endangerment in the first degree,
brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of
Waterbury and tried to the jury before Harmon,
J.; verdict and judgment of guilty of unlawful
discharge of a firearm, carrying a pistol without a permit,
risk of injury to a child and reckless endangerment in the
first degree, from which the defendant appealed to this
court. Affirmed.
Justine F. Miller, assigned counsel, for the appellant
(defendant).
Brett
R. Aiello, special deputy assistant state's attorney,
with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's
attorney, and David A. Gulick, senior assistant state's
attorney, for the appellee (state).
Alvord, Devlin and Norcott, Js.
OPINION
PER
CURIAM.
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 defendant's firing the 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 court's
judgment.
The
following facts reasonably could have been found by the jury
and are relevant to the resolution of this 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 Burk's yard and a small hole in the screen of
Burk's window.
Subsequently,
two officers went in search of the three males they had
passed earlier, who matched Burk's 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 Burk's home with two
friends, Medina and Tommy, and all three appeared to be
intoxicated. Once 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 Burk's 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, Moses, [3] to assist with the flat tire. Moses
arrived, but he left soon thereafter to retrieve a tire. The
defendant and his friends then knocked on Burk's door and
told him that Moses had left with their money. After a
telephone call with Moses, Burk assured the defendant that
Moses was returning.
Later
that evening, Burk saw that the defendant and his friends
remained outside with the unrepaired vehicle. He noticed that
Tommy was in a neighbor's yard and asked the defendant if
Tommy was urinating. Burk then noticed a shift in the
defendant's demeanor. Specifically, the defendant became
angry, approached Burk, and stopped about a foot from his
face. Feeling threatened, Burk told the defendant that he was
going back inside his home. As he walked toward his home, the
defendant followed him and attempted to punch him. Burk
responded by punching the defendant, causing him to stumble
backward.
The
defendant then reached into his waistband. Believing that he
was about to be shot, Burk ran into his home, locked the
door, and braced it with his body. Outside Burk's home,
the defendant began yelling and banging on the door. This
prompted Burk to call 911 on his cell phone. The defendant
then stepped off Burk's porch, pulled a pistol from his
waistband, and fired a shot into Burk's first floor
living room window. Burk heard the shot while he was on the
phone with the 911 ...