168 Conn. App. 675
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Durante Best lived with girlfriend Erika and stepbrother at 275 Jefferson St., Bridgeport; on May 4, 2006 an argument between Best and Erika escalated.
- Octavia and Jones entered the apartment without permission, loudly pounded on Best’s bedroom door, threatened him ("we'll f‑you up") and said they had "backup."
- Best fired through the opened door; Jones died, Octavia and Erika were seriously wounded.
- Defendant submitted a written request to charge for self‑defense after the state’s written request but before the victims testified; the written request merely identified Erika and Octavia as the evidentiary source and did not recite specific facts.
- Trial court denied a self‑defense instruction; defendant excepted but did not state grounds on the record. Jury convicted Best of murder, two counts of attempted murder, two counts of first‑degree assault, and criminal possession of a firearm.
- On appeal the court considered whether (1) the request preserved the claim and (2) the evidence warranted a self‑defense instruction as to each victim.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of claim under Practice Book §42‑18/§42‑16 | Request inadequate—failed to set out essential evidentiary facts; exception lacked stated grounds | Request and exception preserved right to review; identified victims as evidentiary basis | Written request failed §42‑18 so claim unpreserved, but appellate review allowed under Golding for constitutional error |
| Sufficiency of written request’s factual detail | Must state specific facts supporting charge, not merely cite witnesses | Identifying victims who would testify sufficed, and court invited supplements | Request was inadequate for failing to state essential facts; defendant had opportunity to supplement but did not |
| Entitlement to self‑defense instruction re: Octavia and Jones | Even if request defective, evidence did not support reasonable belief of imminent deadly force | Threats, pounding, and "backup" statements could support a reasonable self‑defense belief | Evidence (viewed in defendant’s favor) sufficiently raised self‑defense for Octavia and Jones; instruction required; reversal as to counts involving them |
| Entitlement to self‑defense instruction re: Erika | Erika’s testimony showed she was not threatening; other witnesses contradicted but no evidence she posed imminent threat | Defense argued contradictory testimony could permit instruction | No evidence Erika posed threat or used force; no self‑defense instruction warranted for counts involving Erika; those convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Terwilliger, 294 Conn. 399 (discussing view of evidence favorably to defendant when assessing entitlement to jury instruction)
- State v. Edwards, 234 Conn. 381 (self‑defense burden to inject defense is slight; any foundation may suffice)
- State v. Arreaga, 75 Conn. App. 521 (Practice Book §42‑18 requires proposed request to state essential facts justifying charge)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (modification of Golding review standard)
- State v. Elson, 311 Conn. 726 (right to proper jury instructions on elements of defense is fundamental)
- State v. Bailey, 209 Conn. 322 (self‑defense inapplicable where use of force is not an element of the offense)
- Lin v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 277 Conn. 1 (preservation rules for claims on charge)
- State v. Wright, 62 Conn. App. 743 (exception must state distinct ground to preserve claim)