State v. Ocasio
As stated in the 2006 Connecticut Appellate Court case of State v. Caracoglia, "[t]he testimony of one credible witness is sufficient evidence to convict one accused of a crime." The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. Carlos Ocasio' girlfriend confronted the victim, Hector Alicea, the father of her infant son, regarding visitation issues. Ocasio joined in when the confrontation became physical. Thereafter, Ocasio told individuals he was going to kill Alicea. Alicea, informed that Ocasio was looking for him, found Ocasio's parked car with others and punctured his tires. Eleanor McClain was standing near Alicea when Ocasio returned with William Young. Young passed guns to Ocasio and Victor Baez. McClain saw Ocasio raise his arm and fire three shots towards Alicea. Alicea, bent over a tire, heard shots and felt an impact and pain in his back. He turned and saw Ocasio with a gun and fled in a friend's car. A treating physician testified that Alicea's contusion and abrasion injuries conceivably could be consistent with Alicea being "grazed off the back by an object." Following a jury trial, Ocasio was convicted of commission of a class A, B or C felony with a firearm, assault in the first degree with a firearm and conspiracy to commit such assault. He appealed claiming that insufficient evidence supported these convictions. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. For the first two convictions and despite the defendant's claims to the contrary, ample evidence, including eyewitness testimony, supported the jury's determination that the defendant discharged a firearm towards Alicea. Bolstering this testimony were three additional witnesses, including Alicea, who testified that they saw the defendant with a gun and heard shots fired. The jury also heard testimony regarding the defendant's potential motive to shoot Alicea. Similarly, the evidence was sufficient for the jury reasonably to conclude that the defendant caused injury to Alicea with a bullet. For the conspiracy conviction, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, was sufficient for the jury reasonably to infer that the defendant entered into an agreement with Young to commit assault in the first degree. The jury heard testimony including that Young passed the gun to the defendant, told the same untrue story to police and helped conceal the gun.