Burke v. Mesniaeff, 334 Conn. 100

Defendant purchased and titled a historic Sharon house solely in his name; although not the couple’s primary residence, both spouses listed it as their address, the plaintiff had a key, stored possessions there, and occasionally stayed there.
December 5, 2009: defendant hosted a small public tour. The plaintiff arrived uninvited, entered angrily, screamed at the defendant and a female guest, and the guests felt threatened.
Defendant took the plaintiff by the arm and escorted her out the door and down the driveway; the parties’ accounts of force used were sharply disputed.
At trial the defendant pleaded multiple special defenses including justification (premised on criminal trespass/defense of premises) and defense of others; the court instructed the jury on criminal trespass over the plaintiff’s objection.
The jury found the defendant committed an intentional assault and battery but that plaintiff’s recovery was barred by justification and defense of others; judgment for defendant followed and was affirmed by the Appellate Court.
The Supreme Court held the trespass/defense-of-premises instruction was legally improper (spouse had possessory interest), but the error was harmless because sufficient evidence independently supported the defense-of-others finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a spouse can be criminally trespassing on marital/occupied property so as to support a justification/defense-of-premises instruction	Burke: a spouse cannot be deemed a criminal trespasser as a matter of law absent separation, court order, or clear relinquishment of possessory interest; single request to leave during marital dispute insufficient	Mesniaeff: Sharon house was his separate, titled property; plaintiff refused to leave after being told and thus was a trespasser	Court: Instruction on criminal trespass/defense of premises was improper — focus is on possessory/right-to-enter, not title; facts showed plaintiff had possessory interest so trespass instruction unjustified
Whether evidence was sufficient to support defense of others (i.e., that defendant reasonably believed plaintiff posed imminent threat to guests)	Burke: no evidence plaintiff threatened guests or was about to use force; conduct did not make imminent attack reasonable	Mesniaeff: plaintiff’s enraged, aggressive, out-of-control conduct, prior incidents/body language, and guest testimony that they felt threatened supported a reasonable belief of imminent harm	Court: Evidence sufficient. Jury reasonably could find defendant subjectively believed, and that belief was objectively reasonable, that plaintiff posed imminent risk to guests; thus defense of others independently supports verdict

Carrol v. Allstate Ins. Co., 262 Conn. 433 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and construing evidence in light most favorable to sustaining verdict)
Jacobs v. General Electric Co., 275 Conn. 395 (jury charge reviewed as a whole; charge must fairly present case)
State v. Garrison, 203 Conn. 466 (defense-of-premises/trespass scienter; inquiry into privilege to enter)
State v. Bryan, 307 Conn. 823 (defense-of-others is a justification defense and outlines the subjective-objective belief test)
Brown v. Robishaw, 282 Conn. 628 (self-defense/defense-of-others available in civil intentional tort cases)