State v. Lekosky

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Lekosky

677 A.2d 489, 41 Conn. App. 746, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 306

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 18, 1996

Docket14676

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 677 A.2d 489 (State v. Lekosky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lekosky, 677 A.2d 489, 41 Conn. App. 746, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 306 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Henry W. Lekosky, appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of the crime of possession of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a). The defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree.

The jury heard testimony from two police officers both of whom stated that while they had the defendant under surveillance they saw him throw what they believed to be, and subsequently proved to be, an object containing crack cocaine into a planter, one of many lining the street on which the defendant and his friend were walking. The defendant’s friend, who on three prior occasions had been convicted of possession of cocaine, testified to the contrary.

“In reviewing the sufficiency [of the evidence] claim, we apply a two-part test. First, we construe the evidence [747]*747in 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 of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 126, 646 A.2d 169 (1994).

In the present case, the jury, in the exercise of its fact-finding function, believed the police officers and discredited the defendant’s companion. This court will not reweigh the evidence or resolve questions of credibility in determining whether the evidence was sufficient. State v. Ogrinc, 29 Conn. App. 694, 697, 617 A.2d 924 (1992).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Henry W. Lekosky, appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of the crime of possession of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a). The defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree.

The jury heard testimony from two police officers both of whom stated that while they had the defendant under surveillance they saw him throw what they believed to be, and subsequently proved to be, an object containing crack cocaine into a planter, one of many lining the street on which the defendant and his friend were walking. The defendant’s friend, who on three prior occasions had been convicted of possession of cocaine, testified to the contrary.

“In reviewing the sufficiency [of the evidence] claim, we apply a two-part test. First, we construe the evidence [747]*747in 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 of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 126, 646 A.2d 169 (1994).

In the present case, the jury, in the exercise of its fact-finding function, believed the police officers and discredited the defendant’s companion. This court will not reweigh the evidence or resolve questions of credibility in determining whether the evidence was sufficient. State v. Ogrinc, 29 Conn. App. 694, 697, 617 A.2d 924 (1992).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

677 A.2d 489, 41 Conn. App. 746, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lekosky-connappct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack