State v. Bemer

340 Conn. 804

266 A.3d 116

STATE of Connecticut

v.Bruce John BEMER

SC 20429

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 14, 2020

Officially released September 29, 2021^*

Brendon P. Levesque, with whom were Wesley W. Horton and, on the brief, Michael S. Taylor, Hartford, Anthony Spinella and Ryan Barry, Manchester, for the appellant (defendant).

James A. Killen, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Stephen J. Sedensky III, state's attorney, and Sharmese L. Hodge, former assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Vertefeuille, Js.

MULLINS, J.

The defendant, Bruce John Bemer, appeals from his conviction of four counts of the crime of patronizing a prostitute in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 53a-83 (c),¹ and of one count of the crime of trafficking in persons as an accessory in violation of General Statutes (Supp. 2016) § 53a-192a² and General Statutes § 53a-8. On appeal, the defendant claims, inter alia, that the state presented insufficient evidence to convict him of any of the charged counts. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court.³

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The defendant owned and operated several businesses: a propane company in Glastonbury, a motorcycle shop in the Hartford area, and the Waterford Speedbowl race track. He became acquainted with Robert King, who worked at a car dealership near one of the defendant's businesses. King also performed odd jobs for the defendant's propane company. The defendant and King knew each other for approximately twenty to twenty-five years prior to 2016.

During that time, King would bring men to the defendant for the defendant to engage in sexual conduct with for a fee. The defendant and King would usually communicate and coordinate the visits by phone. King and the defendant would also communicate via text. Sometimes, after King recruited the men, he would send pictures of them to the defendant, and the defendant would comment and indicate whether he was interested in having King bring them to him. The defendant did not communicate with the men directly to arrange the meetings. Most of the visits took place at the defendant's office or at a hotel near Hartford-Brainard Airport. The defendant would engage in sexual conduct with the men and pay them directly, but he knew that King would receive a portion of the fee. Altogether, the defendant engaged in sexual conduct with approximately eight to ten men. Some of the men would come back repeatedly; others would not. The defendant did not know the names of most of the men.

In January, 2016, Daniel Trompetta, a detective in the Danbury Police Department, received information that a sex trafficking operation was being run out of Danbury by King and another individual, William Trefzger. As a result, Trompetta began surveillance of King's trailer. Eventually, the police executed a search warrant at King's trailer and interviewed King. This interview led them to the defendant. Thereafter, they interviewed the defendant and Trefzger. The police then issued arrest warrants for the defendant, King and Trefzger.

At trial, four of the men who had engaged in sexual conduct with the defendant in return for a fee testified. First was Brian I. Brian testified that King approached him while he was employed at a local garden center and asked him to come to King's house to plant a tree. Once at King's house, and for days thereafter, King attempted to entice Brian into using drugs. Prior to that, Brian had been an addict but was sober for a couple of months. Brian eventually succumbed and began using drugs, and began living and sleeping in King's trailer. After a while, King informed Brian that he had incurred a debt with King for hundreds of dollars for the drugs King had supplied.

Thereafter, King made an arrangement with Brian that he could repay the debt by engaging in sexual conduct with the defendant for a fee. King instructed Brian that he was not to discuss the fee with the defendant and that the defendant would pay Brian different amounts, depending on his level of satisfaction. The defendant usually paid about $300. Brian then would give King $50. King did not allow Brian to contact the defendant directly. Brian engaged in sexual conduct with the defendant approximately fifty times and was usually under the influence of drugs when he did so. If Brian ever refused to engage in sexual conduct with the defendant, King would threaten to contact Brian's mother.

Brian also engaged in sexual conduct for a fee with at least one other individual. He also engaged in sexual conduct with King.

Next was Michael F. Michael met King in 2006 at a drug treatment center. King befriended Michael and offered to be Michael's recovery sponsor. After Michael left the drug treatment center, he continued to socialize with King and King's friends and began using drugs with King's friends.

Michael then began living in King's trailer, where King provided him with food, shelter and drugs. At first, King indicated that he was helping Michael as a friend. After a period of time, King informed Michael that he had to pay King back for the food, shelter and drugs.

Like he did with Brian, King proposed that Michael could repay the debt by engaging in sexual conduct with the defendant in exchange for money. Michael agreed. The defendant usually paid about $150. Michael then would give King $50. King did not permit Michael to contact the defendant directly. Michael engaged in sexual conduct with the defendant approximately twenty times. Unbeknownst to the defendant, Michael typically would use drugs immediately after engaging in sexual conduct with the defendant.

Michael was in prison from 2009 to 2011 and remained sober during that time. Upon his release from prison, King convinced him to return to the same arrangement for drugs and engaging in sexual conduct with the defendant for a fee.

Michael also engaged in sexual conduct for a fee with at least one other individual.

Third to testify was William W. At the time that William met King, he was homeless and living in Middletown. Prior to their meeting, King had seen William interviewed on television by a local news station about staying warm during the winter. After seeing the broadcast, King contacted William via Facebook and offered to help him with his financial and living situation. William agreed, and they planned to meet.

King picked up William in Middletown, bought him heroin and then brought him back to King's trailer in Danbury. William lived there for the next few days, eating and getting high. After a while, King informed William that William owed him money. Like he did with Brian and Michael, King proposed that William could repay the debt by engaging in sexual conduct with the defendant for a fee. William agreed.

The defendant usually paid about $300. William then would give King $100. King did not allow William to contact the defendant directly. William engaged in sexual conduct with the defendant approximately seven to ten times and would typically use drugs prior to seeing the defendant.

At one point in time, William stopped living in King's trailer and stopped engaging in sexual conduct with the defendant. Subsequently, however, William contacted King and then engaged in sexual conduct with the defendant for a fee one more time.

William also engaged in sexual conduct for a fee with at least one other individual. King also coordinated that transaction.

Finally, Daniel T. testified. Daniel met King while he was looking for cans at a gas station. He was twenty-one years old and living in a halfway house at the time. King told Daniel that he had cans back at his trailer and drove Daniel there. Once back at the trailer, Daniel remained with King and others that day. King then asked Daniel if he wanted to make money. Daniel said he did. King then arranged for Daniel to see the defendant to engage in sexual conduct for a fee.

Daniel engaged in sexual conduct with the defendant approximately forty to fifty times and would typically use drugs after leaving the defendant's presence. The defendant usually paid about $300. Daniel then would give King $50. Each visit to see the defendant was arranged by King.

Daniel also engaged in sexual conduct for a fee with at least one other individual whom he met through King. Daniel would sometimes spend the night with this other individual. He never slept over at the defendant's house. Daniel testified that, instead, he usually only had a brief interaction with the defendant.

The jury found the defendant guilty of four counts of patronizing a prostitute and one count of trafficking in persons as an accessory.⁴ This appeal followed.⁵

"The standard of review we apply to a claim of insufficient evidence is well established. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction we apply a [two part] test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn there-from the [jury] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Covington , 335 Conn. 212, 219, 229 A.3d 1036 (2020).

Although "[t]here is no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence as far as probative force is concerned"; State v. Perez , 183 Conn. 225, 227, 439 A.2d 305 (1981) ; "[b]ecause [t]he only kind of an inference recognized by the law is a reasonable one ... any such inference cannot be based on possibilities, surmise or conjecture. ... It is axiomatic, therefore, that [a]ny [inference] drawn must be rational and founded upon the evidence. ... However, [t]he line between permissible inference and impermissible speculation is not always easy to discern. When we infer, we derive a...