State v. Bharrat
129 Conn. App. 1
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- December 24, 2005, Bharrat killed Jose Morales in Morales's Hartford apartment by stabbing him while Morales slept.
- Bharrat took Morales's keys, wallet, and cellular telephone; used Morales's phone to contact Annette Deonarine and later stored Morales's wallet and keys in Bharrat's living area.
- Police recovered the murder weapon and Bharrat's bloodstained clothing at Bharrat's apartment; Bharrat publicly implicated himself in the murder in police statements.
- Bharrat was charged with murder, felony murder, burglary in the first degree, and larceny in the third/ sixth degrees; trial proceeded to a jury verdict.
- Bharrat appealed alleging (i) no diminished-capacity instruction, (ii) improper intoxication-evidence instruction, (iii) insufficient felony-murder evidence, and (iv) improper expansion of felony murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diminished-capacity instruction required? | Bharrat contends evidence supported diminished-capacity instruction. | Bharrat argues the court should have instructed on diminished capacity to negate specific intent. | No error; evidence did not support diminished-capacity instruction. |
| Intoxication instruction adequacy? | State asserts intoxication could negate specific intent, affecting murder charge. | Bharrat argues instruction improperly separated intoxication from intent. | Implicit waiver; claim unreviewable. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony murder? | The state proved burglary and that the killing occurred in the course of and in furtherance of that burglary. | Bharrat asserts insufficient nexus between burglary and killing; argues no valid underlaying theory. | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed. |
| Expansion of felony murder scope at trial? | State relied on underlying crimes (larceny or assault) to support felony murder based on unlawful remaining. | Bharrat contends the court expanded felony murder beyond probable-cause ruling. | Waived; defendant implicitly assented to the theory; Golding/plain-error review not available. |
| Was the unlawful-remain theory properly applied to burglary/fi b1l? | The state argued that remaining unlawfully with intent to commit assault or larceny sufficed. | Bharrat argues the theory misstates the law and evidence. | Court allowed intersection of unlawful remaining with underlying burglary; sufficient evidence supported the verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lynch, 287 Conn. 464 (2008) (standard for when an instruction on a defense is mandatory)
- State v. Pagano, 23 Conn.App. 447 (1990) (evidence of mental impairment must relate to ability to form intent)
- State v. Aviles, 107 Conn.App. 209 (2008) (specific-intent elements and intoxication considerations)
- State v. Hines, 187 Conn. 199 (1982) (diminished capacity evidentiary standards)
- State v. Allen, 216 Conn. 367 (1990) (license to remain on premises and unlawful-remain analysis)
- State v. Belton, 190 Conn. 496 (1983) (scope of license and remaining unlawfully in burglary)
- State v. Gelormino, 24 Conn.App. 563 (1991) (consent and scope of license in burglary remaining)
- State v. Morocho, 93 Conn.App. 205 (2006) (terrorization as basis for unlawful remaining)
- State v. Reyes, 19 Conn.App. 179 (1989) (evidence of remaining unlawfully under terror theory)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (implicit waiver doctrine for instructional-error claims)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (plain-error and Golding review framework)