State v. Kari

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Kari

608 A.2d 92, 222 Conn. 539, 1992 Conn. LEXIS 185

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided June 23, 1992·No. 14450·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this criminal appeal, the defendant, Nelson Kari, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction of unlawful removal or alteration of records in violation of General Statutes § 53-153.¹ The Appellate Court concluded that his conviction should be affirmed. State v. Kari, 26 Conn. App. 286, 600 A.2d 1374 (1991). We granted certification to permit the defendant to appeal solely on the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a reasonable finding that the defendant had acted “corruptly” within the meaning of the statute.²

The opinion of the Appellate Court reports in full the facts that the jury might reasonably have found to support the conviction of the defendant. The defendant contests the reasonableness of an inference of a corrupt motive that a jury might have drawn from evi[541] dence establishing that: (1) without the authority to do so, he signed a contract for the purchase of a computer system; (2) in response to an official inquiry, he lied about having signed this contract; and (3) he thereafter destroyed the contract and documentation relating thereto.

After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we have concluded that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The certified issue was fully considered in the opinion of the Appellate Court; id., 292; and it would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained. See State v. Soltes, 215 Conn. 614, 615, 577 A.2d 717 (1990); State v. Timmons, 204 Conn. 120, 121, 526 A.2d 1340 (1987); State v. Marshall, 199 Conn. 244, 506 A.2d 1035 (1986).

The appeal is dismissed.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

In this criminal appeal, the defendant, Nelson Kari, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction of unlawful removal or alteration of records in violation of General Statutes § 53-153.¹ The Appellate Court concluded that his conviction should be affirmed. State v. Kari, 26 Conn. App. 286, 600 A.2d 1374 (1991). We granted certification to permit the defendant to appeal solely on the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a reasonable finding that the defendant had acted “corruptly” within the meaning of the statute.²

The opinion of the Appellate Court reports in full the facts that the jury might reasonably have found to support the conviction of the defendant. The defendant contests the reasonableness of an inference of a corrupt motive that a jury might have drawn from evi[541] dence establishing that: (1) without the authority to do so, he signed a contract for the purchase of a computer system; (2) in response to an official inquiry, he lied about having signed this contract; and (3) he thereafter destroyed the contract and documentation relating thereto.

After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we have concluded that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The certified issue was fully considered in the opinion of the Appellate Court; id., 292; and it would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained. See State v. Soltes, 215 Conn. 614, 615, 577 A.2d 717 (1990); State v. Timmons, 204 Conn. 120, 121, 526 A.2d 1340 (1987); State v. Marshall, 199 Conn. 244, 506 A.2d 1035 (1986).

The appeal is dismissed.

Footnotes

State v. Kari, 608 A.2d 92, 222 Conn. 539, 1992 Conn. LEXIS 185 (Colo. 1992).

Pincite

608 A.2d 92 (State v. Kari) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related