## Facts

- Darren Madison and Lamarr Sands, former friends, argued in the hallway of a Waterbury Super 8 Motel; Madison left, saying he would return with his “boys.”
- Jeffrey Smith, a friend of Sands, stayed at the motel because he feared Sands would be outnumbered when Madison returned.
- Madison returned with Cristobal Millan, Jr. and three other men; Millan had a work-issued retractable razor (“box cutter”) in his pocket.
- The group gathered outside Sands’s room, banged on the door, and taunted Sands to come out; Sands exited, and Madison and Sands began fighting.
- When Smith told the group not to intervene, Millan fought Smith; after Millan was bloodied, he drew the box cutter.
- Evidence indicated Millan directed an accomplice to hit Smith with a chair; Smith avoided the blow but fell, and Millan slashed Smith multiple times, causing serious injuries.
- Millan and Madison left; Millan changed shirts and disposed of the knife.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted evidence that earlier in 2005 Millan and another man assaulted and robbed Sands while Madison watched, offered to show motive/context and the parties’ relationship.
- Millan claimed self-defense as to the stabbing of Smith.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Millan agreed with others to commit first-degree assault on Sands with a dangerous instrument and that an overt act furthered that agreement.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting uncharged misconduct evidence concerning a prior assault/robbery of Sands to prove a proper, non-propensity purpose, and whether its probative value outweighed unfair prejudice.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the convictions for first-degree assault and conspiracy to commit first-degree assault.
- The court held the evidence permitted an inference of an agreement to return to the motel and assault Sands, including contemplated use of a dangerous instrument, and showed overt acts in furtherance.
- The court held the prior misconduct evidence was admitted for proper purposes (relationship/context and motive) and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in balancing probative value against unfair prejudice, aided by limiting instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Conspiracy requires (1) an agreement between two or more persons to engage in criminal conduct and (2) an overt act in furtherance; an express agreement is unnecessary and may be proved by circumstantial evidence and surrounding circumstances.
- In evaluating sufficiency, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict; the question is whether a rational jury could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- For conspiracy, the offense focuses on the unlawful agreement and an overt act; completion of the planned crime or injury to the originally contemplated victim is not required.
- Uncharged misconduct evidence is generally inadmissible to prove propensity but may be admitted for a legitimate, non-propensity purpose (including motive and the relationship among participants) if relevant and if probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, with limiting instructions as a safeguard.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Millan’s conspiracy conviction based on coordinated return-to-the-scene conduct and weapon possession/use supporting an inference of agreement and overt acts, and it upheld admission of prior misconduct evidence to explain the parties’ relationship and motive where the trial court reasonably found probative value outweighed unfair prejudice.


State v. Millan, 290 Conn. 816, 966 A.2d 699 (Conn. 2009)