Opinion
No. CR91-73668
June 22, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MARTYN BRUNO
Martyn Bruno, petitioner, was convicted by a three-judge panel of the following: Murder, a violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a; Tampering with Evidence (three counts), a violation of General Statutes § 53a-155(a)(1). The three-judge panel imposed a total effective sentence of 60 years.
On July 22, 1991, Connecticut State Police received a complaint from a New Hartford woman that her 34-year-old stepson, David A. Rusinko, had been missing since July 16, 1991. On August 9, 1991, a Cara Ignacak reported to the New Hartford Resident Trooper's Office that a few weeks earlier she had been at a cabin campsite in the woods off the Farmington River Turnpike with her boyfriend, Brian Bingham, and the petitioner.
It was then that the petitioner and Rusinko began to argue. Ignacak stated that the petitioner then beat Rusinko with a pipe until he fell to the floor, at which time the petitioner starting crying, saying, "What have I done? He's my best friend." She related that the petitioner repeatedly struck him and then asked Bingham for a knife. Ignacak stated that the petitioner slit Rusinko's throat and then Bingham and the petitioner threw the victim's body in the fireplace and burned it along with boards from the wall they believed the victim had touched and the petitioner's sneakers, which were bloody.
She further stated that a day or two later, Bingham told her that he and petitioner went back to the cabin and poured paint over the floor to cover up the blood and to make it appear the cabin had been vandalized. Ignacak added that Bingham told her the petitioner had held a grudge against the victim because a few years earlier he had caused problems between the petitioner and an individual who supplied him with drugs.
In an interview with police on August 9, 1991, Brian Bingham confirmed that on July 17, 1991, the petitioner and victim had argued and that the petitioner began punching the victim about the head and the body, and the victim pleaded with him to stop until he lost consciousness. Bingham related that the petitioner then picked up a hollow steel pipe, striking him repeatedly in the head, chest, back, arms and legs. He further stated that the petitioner asked him for his knife and when he refused, the petitioner got a piece of broken mirror and slashed the victim's throat, stood up and said, "That's it. It's done." Bingham related that the petitioner stated he would have to bury the body and Ignacak said, "Why don't you burn it?" to which the subject replied, "That's a good idea."
Bingham stated that he took Ignacak home after being told by the petitioner that if they told anyone he'd kill them, and that he agreed to return. Bingham related that when he returned, he saw the victim's torso in the fire.
Bingham told police that the following day he drove his motorcycle to the petitioner's house and the subject took a shovel and large plastic bag along with two gallons of paint and they returned to the cabin. He stated that the petitioner shoveled the ashes from the fireplace which contained bone fragments into the bag, went to a nearby outhouse and returned, lighting the empty bag on fire. Bingham further stated that the petitioner then dumped the gallons of paint on the floor and spread the paint with a mop, and threw the pipes he had used and the paint cans into the woods before they left.
On August 10, 1991, Connecticut State Police located the cabin and outhouse described by Bingham. They found blood-like stains on the wooden railing of the porch, freshly painted areas on the floor and charred material under the seat of the outhouse.
The petitioner was then arrested.
Counsel for the petitioner argues the court did not consider his client's medical or psychological problems.
The petitioner addressed the Division and stated he did not remember committing the crime, although he did recall covering up the crime. He claims to be deeply sorry. The victim was his friend. He apologized to the victim's family.
The state argued that a crime does not get any worse than this case. The petitioner beat the victim into unconsciousness before he murdered him. His throat was slashed and his body burned.
The victim's family addressed the Division and strongly opposed any reduction in the petitioner's sentence. It would be a cruel injustice.
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq., the Sentence Review Division is limited in its scope of review. The Division is to determine whether the sentence imposed "should be modified because it is inappropriate or disproportionate in the light of the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, the protection of the public interest, and the deterrent, rehabilitative, isolative and denunciatory purposes for which the sentence was intended."
The Division is without authority to modify sentences except in accordance with the provisions of Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq. and the Connecticut General Statutes § 51-194 et seq.
The crime was clearly one of the most vicious, cruel and senseless crimes that one could imagine. The victim was the petitioner's friend. The victim begged the petitioner for his life before the petitioner brutally bludgeoned the victim to death. If that was not enough disrespect for human life, the petitioner then burned the victim's remains to conceal the crime.
In reviewing the record as a whole, the Division finds that the sentencing Court's actions were in accordance with the parameters of Connecticut Practice Book § 43-23 et seq.
The sentence imposed was neither inappropriate or disproportionate.
The Sentence is AFFIRMED.
Ianotti, J.
Clifford, J.
Holden, J.
Iannotti, J., Clifford, J., and Holden, J. participated in this decision.