****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date. Allopinions are subjecttomodificationandtechnical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or ConnecticutAppellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears onthe Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service andinthe ConnecticutLawJournal andboundvolumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State ofConnecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. THOMAS WALCZYK (AC 36354)
DiPentima, C. J., and Prescott and Dupont, Js. Argued November 17, 2014—officially released February 24, 2015 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, geographical area number twelve, C.

Taylor, J.) Bethany L. Phillips, for the appellant (defendant).
Maria del Pilar Gonzalez, deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, onthe brief, were GailP. Hardy, state’s attorney, and Jaclyn Preville, deputy assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Thomas Walczyk,1 appealsfromthejudgmentofconviction, renderedafter
a jury trial, of evading responsibility in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2011) § 14-224 (b)2 following his involvementin amotorvehicle accident. On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence produced at trial with respect to two elements of § 14-224 (b): (1) damage to the school bus; and (2) whetherthe defendant fulfilled his statutory obligation to stop, render assistance, and give his name, address, operator’s license number and registration number to either the school bus driver or the police. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On September 5, 2012, a school bus driver was transporting schoolchildren home on a school bus and
was approaching a stop sign located on Howard Street in East Hartford, when he noticed a vehicle parked on the right hand side of the street approximately ten to twenty feet from the stop sign. He then drove to the left side of that parked vehicle in order to safely approach the stop sign. While the school bus was still positioned onthe incorrectside ofthe street, the defendant drove his vehicle, a station wagon, toward the school bus and, upon observing the school bus in his way, yelled at the bus driver to move the bus. When the bus driver did not move the school bus, the defendant drove his vehicle between the bus and the parked
car. In doing so, the defendanthitthe side ofthe school bus and its front bumper with his vehicle. The school bus sustained damage to the right side of its front bumper. After the accident, the defendant exited his vehicle, picked up a piece of molding that had fallen offhis vehicle due to the collision with the school bus, andyelledvariousobscenitiesatthebusdrivertowhich the bus driver did not respond. The bus driver did not feel it was safe to respond to the defendant because he had schoolchildren on the bus and he felt that he needed to protect them. Subsequently, the defendant backed up his vehicle and drove off without giving the bus driver his name, address, license number or registration number. The defendant did not initiate any contact with the police following the accident. Following the accident, the bus driver radioed to his dispatcher to explain what had happened and the dispatcher contacted the East Hartford Police Department. When the police arrived on the scene, the bus driver gave Officer Frank Thomas the defendant’s license plate number. On the basis ofthat information, Thomas telephonedthe defendantthat evening andthe defendant identified himself as the person operating thevehicle involved inthe accident. The defendantmet Thomas at the police station a few days later and provided Thomas with his insurance paperwork. Subse-quently, the defendant was charged with evading responsibility pursuant to § 14-224 (b).
After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of evadingresponsibilitypursuantto § 14-224 (b), andwas sentenced by the court to one year of incarceration, executionsuspended, followedbythreeyears ofprobation, and fined six hundred dollars. Thereafter, he filed this appeal and a motion to stay ‘‘the entire order of probation’’ pending the outcome of this appeal, which motion was granted by the trial court. On appeal, the defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that he violated § 14-224 (b). Specifically,thedefendantarguesthattheevidencewas not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether there was any damage to the school bus, and whether he stopped, rendered assistance to the bus driver, andgavethebusdriverhisname, address, operator’s license number or registration number. ‘‘The standard of review employed in a sufficiency ofthe evidence claim is well settled. [W]e apply a two part test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the [jury] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force ofthe evidence establishedguiltbeyondareasonable doubt.

. . . This court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the jury if there is sufficient evidence to supportthejury’sverdict.’’ (Internalquotation marks omitted.) Statev. Elsey, 81 Conn. App. 738, 743– 44, 841 A.2d 714, cert. denied, 269 Conn. 901, 852 A.2d 733 (2004). ‘‘On appeal, we do not ask whether there is areasonableviewofthe evidencethatwouldsupport
areasonable hypothesis ofinnocence. We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the [jury’s] verdict of guilty.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lopez, 280 Conn. 779, 809, 911 A.2d 1099 (2007).
General Statutes (Rev. to 2011) § 14-224 (b) requires that ‘‘[e]ach person operating a motor vehicle who is knowingly involved in an accident which causes

. . . damage to property shall at once stop and render such assistance as may be needed and shall give his name, address and operator’s license number andregistration number

. . . to the owner of the

. . . damaged property, or to any officer or witness to the

. . . damage to property, and if such operator of the motor vehicle causing the

. . . damage to any property is unable to give his name, address and operator’s license number and registration number to the

. . . owner ofthe property

. . . damaged, or to any witness or officer, for any reason or cause, such operator shall immediately report such

. . . damage to property to apolice officer

. . . a state police officer or an inspector of motor vehicles or at the nearest police precinct or station,and shall state in such report the location and circumstances of the accident causing the

. . . damage to propertyandhisname, address, operator’slicensenumber and registration number.’’ (Emphasis added.)
On the basis of the differing accounts of damage to the school bus, thejury could have concluded that the bus had sustained some damage, however slight, and that the defendant should have given the bus driver the information required by the statute. Although the defendant testified that he did stop and attempt to talk to the driver, he did not, perhaps due to his own demeanor, provide the information required by § 14- 224 (b) to eitherthe bus driver orto the police immediatelyafterthe accident. The operatorofamotorvehicle involved in an accident that causes damage to another vehicle, however slight, is required by the statute in questiontoprovidetheinformationlistedinthestatute. Afterreviewingthe evidence inthe lightmostfavorable to sustaining the verdict, we conclude that the jury reasonably could have concluded that the defendant violated § 14-224 (b). Accordingly, we sustain the conviction.
The judgment is affirmed.

1 The defendantrepresentedhimselfattrial, butis representedbycounsel

on appeal to this court.
2 Effective October 1, 2014, § 14-224 was amended by No. 14-130, § 25, of the 2014 Public Acts. Hereinafter, all references to § 14-224 in this opinion

are to the 2011 revision of the statute.