State v. Jamison

¶1Opinion

¶2The defendant, Kenneth Jamison, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2).1 He claims that the evidence was insufficient to convict him because (1) the jury returned inconsistent not guilty verdicts on two other gun related counts, (2) the victim was not believable and (3) the jury found him guilty solely because he previously had been convicted of manslaughter. We conclude that the claims are not reviewable and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

¶3The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On September 21,1995, Hashim Preston was in his *225sister’s apartment in Bridgeport. Shortly after midnight, Maria Caban knocked on the door of the apartment and was let in by Preston. While the door was open, the defendant forced his way into the apartment and engaged Preston in a hostile conversation about certain money matters. At some point, the defendant pulled out a long black stick that had tape and a cable wire around it, and struck Preston in the face with it five to seven times.

¶4On October 12,1995, several police officers executed a search and seizure warrant at 400 Wood Avenue. The defendant was present, but told the officers that he was a visitor to the premises. The officers seized a gun that belonged to the defendant, ammunition and an identification card that contained the defendant’s picture and the name “Johnny Vincent.”

¶5On the basis of Preston’s identification, the defendant was arrested and a trial followed. At the close of the state’s case, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal2 on the grounds that a state’s witness gave conflicting versions of the incident, the police investigation was inadequate, and the search and seizure warrant was defective. He did not claim that the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the counts of the information that alleged criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a)3 and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a).4 The *226jury found the defendant guilty of assault in the second degree, and this appeal followed.

¶6I

¶7The defendant challenges the jury verdict claiming that it was based on insufficient evidence. He constructs the following argument: Preston gave the only evidence of the assault, testifying that the defendant struck him with a gun, and the evidence showed that the same gun was found three weeks later in an apartment occupied by the defendant. By finding the defendant not guilty of criminal possession of a firearm and carrying a pistol without a permit, the jury demonstrated that it did not believe Preston’s testimony that he was struck with a gun. Although Preston testified that the defendant also struck him with the stick that was wrapped with tape and cable wire, it is “inconceivable” that the jury believed Preston’s testimony. The defendant further asserts that “[t]he only conclusion which can be drawn from the verdicts is that the jury convicted [the defendant] based on his prior conviction of manslaughter. . . . Prior conviction of manslaughter is not sufficient to convict an individual of assault in the second degree.”5

¶8The defendant concedes that the insufficiency claim now made on appeal was not made in the trial court. He asserts, however, that a claim that the evidence was insufficient to convict is of constitutional dimension and, therefore, reviewable pursuant to State v. Golding, *227213 Conn. 233, 567 A.2d 823 (1989).6 This contention is correct; see State v. Roy, 233 Conn. 211, 212-13, 658 A.2d 566 (1995); but it is also subject to another principle. Although a defendant may label a claim as constitutional in nature, such labeling does not make it so. State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 164, 728 A.2d 466, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862, 120 S. Ct. 152, 145 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1999); State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 502-503, 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121, 117 S. Ct. 2515, 138 L. Ed. 2d 1017 (1997). Here, neither the individual components of the defendant’s insufficiency claim nor their sum rises to the level of constitutional magnitude.

¶9The cornerstone of the defendant’s claim is his assertion that the two not guilty verdicts conclusively demonstrate that the jury did not believe Preston. This is nothing more than a claim that the verdicts are inconsistent. “[A] claim that factually inconsistent verdicts must be set aside is not one of constitutional dimension.” State v. Milner, 46 Conn. App. 118, 125, 699 A.2d 1022 (1997).

¶10II

¶11The second component of the defendant’s insufficiency claim is that it is “inconceivable” that the jury believed Preston’s testimony that he was struck with the taped wire wrapped stick.7 The defendant offers no *228authority in support of the claim that his disagreement with the jury’s assessment of Preston’s credibility rises to the level of constitutional magnitude. Our Supreme Court has “recognized . . . that claimed instructional errors regarding general principles of credibility of witnesses are not constitutional in nature. . . . Indeed, it would trivialize the constitution to transmute a nonconstitutional claim into a constitutional claim simply because of the label placed on it by a party or because of a strained connection between it and a fundamental constitutional right.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schiappa, supra,248 Conn. 165. If claimed instructional errors regarding witness credibility are not of constitutional dimension, we see no reason to accord constitutional status to the defendant’s claim that the jury could not have believed parts of Preston’s testimony.

¶12Ill

¶13The defendant’s final claim is that the jury must have found him guilty solely because of his prior manslaughter conviction. This assertion constitutes the entire briefing of the claim. We are not required to review a claim that amounts to nothing more than a completely speculative assertion unsupported by analysis or authority. See Cummings v. Twin Tool Mfg. Co., 40 Conn. App. 36, 45, 668 A.2d 1346 (1996).

¶14The judgment is affirmed.

¶15In this opinion the other judges concurred.