## Facts

- Waterbury police discovered Hector Nieves dead in an abandoned building after an anonymous report; the victim had been beaten and repeatedly stabbed, and police found bloody weapons at the scene.
- Evidence at Jose Colon’s jury trial indicated Colon and Kevin Soto brought Nieves to the building on a planned “mission” and attacked him using weapons.
- Soto later reported the incident and implicated Colon as the principal assailant.
- Colon was questioned by police and confessed to involvement in the killing.
- Colon and Soto were tried separately; Colon was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, while Soto was later acquitted of conspiracy in his own trial on a different evidentiary record.
- After Soto’s acquittal, Colon moved for judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy count, arguing his conviction could not stand if the only alleged coconspirator was acquitted; the trial court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant may be convicted of conspiracy under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-48(a) when the sole alleged coconspirator is acquitted of conspiracy in a separate trial.
2. Whether prior Connecticut decisions treating § 53a-48(a) as “bilateral” require reversal of a conspiracy conviction solely because a separately tried alleged coconspirator was acquitted.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the judgment, including the conspiracy conviction.
- The court held that § 53a-48(a) permits a “unilateral” application in separate-trial situations: a defendant’s conspiracy conviction does not fail solely because an alleged coconspirator is acquitted in a different proceeding.
- The court concluded the evidence at Colon’s trial was sufficient for a jury to find an agreement to kill, intent that the murder be committed, and overt acts in furtherance of the agreement.
- The court limited prior “bilateral” conspiracy precedent to the extent it required automatic reversal based on a separately tried alleged coconspirator’s acquittal.

## Legal Principles

- In separate trials of alleged coconspirators, a conspiracy conviction turns on the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the defendant’s own jury, not on the outcome reached by a different jury in another case.
- Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-48(a) does not require that all alleged conspirators be convicted (or even criminally liable) as a condition of convicting a particular defendant, where the state proves agreement, intent, and an overt act as to that defendant.
- Inconsistent verdicts across separate trials do not, by themselves, establish legal error or negate a conviction supported by sufficient evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Colon’s conspiracy conviction, holding that a separate-trial acquittal of the only alleged coconspirator does not invalidate a conspiracy conviction supported by sufficient proof of an agreement, intent, and an overt act at the defendant’s own trial.


State v. Colon, 257 Conn. 587, 778 A.2d 875 (2001)