## Facts

- Two inmates, Ronell Hanks and Jose Roque, were housed at the Bridgeport community correctional center.
- During an early-morning shift, a correction officer (Gary DuBois) permitted certain inmates out of their cells to clean.
- Multiple inmates attacked DuBois, striking him, taking his keys and body alarm, and moving to gain control over doors and the guard “bubble” controls.
- Evidence at trial indicated Roque struck DuBois during the group assault; Hanks kicked DuBois and later acted as a lookout for approaching officers while others worked the controls.
- DuBois was injured and temporarily incapacitated while inmates used his keys and attempted to manipulate controlled-access doors as part of an escape effort.
- The disturbance was contained by other correction officers, who discovered DuBois injured and the inmates in the midst of an attempted escape.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Hanks and Roque guilty as accessories to first-degree assault and guilty of attempted escape in the first degree.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Roque guilty of conspiracy to commit first-degree assault and conspiracy to commit escape in the first degree.
3. Whether admitting testimony about Roque’s prior escape from the same facility denied the defendants a fair trial.
4. Whether the prosecutor’s closing argument improperly suggested that acquittal would mean law-enforcement witnesses lied under oath, thereby denying a fair trial.
5. Whether the jury instructions (identity, witness credibility including defendants’ interest, reasonable doubt/burden of proof, and offense elements) contained reversible error.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the judgments of conviction as to both defendants.
- The court held the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that both defendants aided the first-degree assault and took substantial steps toward escape.
- The court held the evidence supported Roque’s conspiracy convictions because the jury could infer an agreement and overt acts from coordinated conduct.
- The court held the challenged evidentiary ruling regarding prior-escape testimony was within the trial court’s discretion and did not result in an unfair trial.
- The court held the prosecutor’s remark, viewed in context and with curative instructions that argument is not evidence and the state bears the burden, did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
- The court held the jury charge, considered as a whole, accurately stated the law and adequately explained the state’s burden and the elements of the offenses.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction must be sustained if, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Accessory liability may be found where the defendant, with the required mental state, intentionally aids or participates in conduct constituting the offense; intent may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances.
- Attempt requires intent to commit the crime plus conduct constituting a substantial step that goes beyond mere preparation.
- Conspiracy requires proof of an agreement to commit a crime and an overt act in furtherance; both may be established through circumstantial evidence, including coordinated actions.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; even potentially prejudicial evidence does not warrant reversal absent unfairness that substantially affects the verdict.
- Prosecutorial-misconduct claims turn on whether the challenged remarks, in context and in light of the entire trial and instructions, deprived the defendant of due process.
- Jury instructions are evaluated as a whole; emphasis on particular topics, credibility factors (including a defendant’s interest), and phrasing of reasonable-doubt language is not reversible error if the charge correctly conveys the governing law and burden.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Court affirmed convictions arising from a coordinated inmate assault and escape attempt, holding that the evidence supported accessory, attempt, and conspiracy findings and that the complained-of evidence, closing argument, and jury instructions did not deprive either defendant of a fair trial.


State v. Hanks, 39 Conn. App. 333, 665 A.2d 102 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995)