Opinion ID: 2077155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We begin with the defendant's claim that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the crimes charged. [14] Specifically, the defendant argues that there was evidence, not refuted by the state, that it was physically impossible for [him] to have committed the charged crimes because [the victim] was in schoolnot in [his] apartmenton the day and time that she claimed she was assaulted. The defendant also emphasizes the lack of physical evidence to support the victim's allegations, and that the only evidence of his guilt is the inconsistent and contradictory testimony of the [victim]; testimony on the basis of which no reasonable person could have concluded that [he] was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In response, the state argues that the defendant's claim is a misguided invitation to this court to second-guess the credibility determinations of the jury, and further contends that the verdict is supported by direct evidence, namely, the victim's testimony. We agree with the state and conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict under the well established standard by which we review sufficiency of the evidence claims. See, e.g., State v. Na'im B., 288 Conn. 290, 295-97, 952 A.2d 755 (2008) (evidence construed in light most favorable to sustaining verdict in determining whether it is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt). The defendant does not claim that the evidence, if properly credited by the jury, leaves unsatisfied any of the elements of the offenses charged under § 53a-70(a)(2), § 53a-95(a) or § 53-21(a)(2). Rather, he contends that he could not have committed the crimes because attendance records from the victim's middle school indicate that she was there, rather than with him, on the day and at the time of the assault. The jury, however, reasonably could have found that those attendance records were the product of a data entry error committed by one of the victim's homeroom teachers, who had not recorded the victim as being absent when she took attendance using the Letter Grade computer program during homeroom, which lasted from 7:50 until 8 a.m. [15] O, who had seen the victim drive by the bus stop with the defendant, and was in all of her classes except for homeroom, testified that the victim was absent from all of her classes that day, and was not present when they customarily met up after homeroom to travel together to their first instructional period. June Kozloski, the victim's art teacher, testified that, in her individual records, she had recorded the victim as absent from her class, which was scheduled from approximately 12:30 until 1:20 p.m. [16] Kozloski also testified that, in her experience, the attendance indicated by Letter Grade frequently was erroneous. Heidi Doolan, the victim's music teacher, testified similarly. Finally, Rebecca Wisnie, a Waterbury police detective, testified that she had learned during her investigation that the victim had not taken an English test that was administered that day, either. With respect to the defendant's claims that the victim's trial testimony was flawed by her unreliable memory, [17] and also was inconsistent with portions of her voluntary statement to the police, none of the claimed inconsistencies [18] negates the essential elements of the offenses charged, and is not a ground for reversal because [q]uestions of whether to believe or to disbelieve a competent witness are beyond our review. As a reviewing court, we may not retry the case or pass on the credibility of witnesses. . . . We must defer to the trier of fact's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses that is made on the basis of its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mullins, 288 Conn. 345, 365, 952 A.2d 784 (2008); see also, e.g., State v. Linarte, 107 Conn.App. 93, 117-18, 944 A.2d 369 ([t]hough labeled as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this claim rests on an assessment of the witnesses' credibility), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 901, 957 A.2d 873 (2008). Thus, we conclude that the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's guilt of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt.