State of Connecticut v. Richard Koslik (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION REGARDING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL

The Defendant was convicted after a jury trial in January 2008 on three counts of violating the Connecticut Home Improvement Act, in contravention of General Statutes § 20–427(b).  Each of the crimes for which the Defendant was found guilty is a Class B misdemeanor.   On April 4, 2008, this court sentenced the Defendant for those offenses to a total effective sentence of nine months imprisonment, and fines of $2,000.   The Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, and that appeal is currently pending before the Connecticut Appellate Court.

On October 19, 2011, the Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, citing Practice Book § 42–40.   Hearings on this motion, and other post-trial motions filed by the Defendant, were held on December 2, 2011 and on December 12, 2011.   The parties were allowed until February 2, 2012 to file memoranda of fact and law pertaining to those motions.

Practice Book § 42–40 states as follows:  “Motions for a directed verdict of acquittal and for dismissal when used during trial are abolished.   Motions for a judgment of acquittal shall be used in their place.   After the close of the prosecution's case in chief, or at the close of all the evidence, upon motion of the defendant or upon its own motion, the judicial authority shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal as to any principal offense charged, and as to any lesser included offense for which the evidence would not reasonably permit a finding of guilty.   Such judgment shall not apply to any lesser included offense for which the evidence would reasonably permit a finding of guilty.”

The plain language of this practice book section clearly indicates that such motions are permitted to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, and should be raised during the trial, at the close of the state's case, and/or after all the evidence has been presented.

The Defendant made a motion for judgment of acquittal, based on claims that the evidence was insufficient for conviction, during the trial.   In response to such a motion by the defendant after the State rested, the court entered a judgment of acquittal on one count of offering to make a home improvement, but found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support a conviction on the remaining three counts alleged in the substitute information.

In his post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal under date of October 19, 2011, the Defendant asserts 12 grounds for the relief requested.¹  One of the claims specifically mentions the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial.   It reads:  “The verdict is against the evidence.”

This court has previously ruled on the sufficiency of the evidence offered by the State at trial.   The court declines to revisit that issue again, and suggests that any claim of error concerning the sufficiency of the evidence is more appropriately raised by the Defendant in the pending appeal.

With respect to the other grounds cited by the Defendant in his post-judgment motion for acquittal and February 2012 memorandum, the court finds that they are not properly raised under the provisions of Practice Book § 42–40.

The motion is hereby DENIED in its entirety.   Dated this 2nd day of March 2012.

BY THE COURT:

Dyer, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The 12 grounds claimed for the relief requested are listed on pages 1 and 2 of the Defendant's October 19, 2011 Motion For Judgment of Acquittal.   They are incorporated by reference, in their entirety, here..  FN1. The 12 grounds claimed for the relief requested are listed on pages 1 and 2 of the Defendant's October 19, 2011 Motion For Judgment of Acquittal.   They are incorporated by reference, in their entirety, here.

Dyer, Richard W., J.