## Facts

- In September 2006, Aaron McCrae (also known as “A‑Love”) was shot to death near the New Haven train station.
- The killing was tied to retaliation for the earlier murder of another man (“Carlito”), for which McCrae was blamed by associates of a drug dealer known as “Primo.”
- Geraldo Rosado, Luis Santana, and Juan Nunez were arrested in connection with McCrae’s death.
- Rosado initially gave police two statements denying involvement and denying that he was present at the shooting.
- Rosado later admitted being present at three times and places tied to the crime: (1) the scene of the shooting, (2) a meeting where Primo ordered McCrae killed, and (3) the moment Primo handed Santana two guns to carry out the killing.
- In Rosado’s account, Primo “put a hit out” on McCrae and displayed money (reported as $15,000) while supplying two firearms to Santana.
- After the meeting, Rosado stayed with Nunez and Santana as they received word that McCrae was outside and went looking for him.
- Rosado admitted that Santana waited in an alleyway and then ran across the street and shot McCrae.
- Ballistics evidence showed McCrae was shot with bullets fired from two different handguns.
- After the shooting, Rosado admitted that he fled to Nunez’s residence and met up there with Santana.
- Police later recovered the two murder weapons from Nunez’s home.
- DNA testing on the handgrips of both guns revealed mixed DNA profiles; Rosado, Santana, and Nunez could not be excluded as contributors.
- A jury found Rosado guilty of conspiracy to commit murder under Connecticut law.
- After the verdict, Rosado moved for a judgment of acquittal, claiming the evidence was insufficient because there was no direct proof that he agreed to join a plan to kill McCrae.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, the jury reasonably could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Rosado agreed with others to murder McCrae, so that the court should deny Rosado’s post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Superior Court (Blue, J.) denied Rosado’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
- The court held that the state was not required to present direct evidence of an express agreement; the jury could infer an agreement from Rosado’s admissions and the surrounding circumstances.
- The conspiracy-to-commit-murder conviction remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- On a post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and asks whether the jury reasonably could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Conspiracy requires proof that the defendant (1) intended that a crime be committed, (2) agreed with one or more persons to commit that crime, and (3) that an overt act was committed in furtherance of the agreement.
- Because conspiracies are typically covert, the agreement element may be proven by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from conduct and events before, during, and after the offense.
- A defendant’s continuing association with participants through the planning, search for the victim, commission of the crime, and immediate aftermath may support an inference of knowing participation rather than mere presence.
- False denials and shifting accounts may be considered by the jury as evidence of consciousness of guilt.
- Physical evidence connecting a defendant to the instrumentalities of the crime, such as DNA on both murder weapons found at a co-participant’s residence, may be considered with the defendant’s statements and conduct in determining whether an agreement existed.

## Conclusion

The trial court denied Rosado’s post-verdict request for acquittal because, taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, Rosado’s own admissions placed him at the meeting where a “hit” was ordered and guns were provided, at the scene when Santana shot McCrae, and at the post-shooting flight and regrouping at Nunez’s home where the weapons were recovered, and the DNA evidence on both guns supported the jury’s inference that Rosado joined an agreement to murder McCrae.


State v. Rosado, 2009 WL 3086436 (2009)