State v. Bialowas
174 A.3d 853
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant drove a pickup with his girlfriend (Sanford) after a confrontation between defendant and victim; the victim followed them and confronted the defendant on the road.
- Defendant accelerated; the victim jumped onto the hood, fell off when the defendant swerved, and suffered fatal head injuries.
- Defendant and Sanford left the scene; defendant did not provide information at the scene nor immediately report the accident to police; he later tried to avoid detection (removed phone battery, hid truck, hid in woods).
- Defendant was charged with murder and evasion of responsibility in operation of a motor vehicle (§ 14-224(a)); jury convicted of second-degree manslaughter and evasion of responsibility.
- On appeal defendant argued plain error by the trial court’s failure to sua sponte instruct the jury that a reasonable fear of harm could excuse failure to stop under § 14-224(a); the Supreme Court remanded for plain error review in light of McClain.
- Appellate court affirmed: the statutory-element instruction was correct and its phrasing (“for any reason or cause”) allowed the jury to consider a Rosario-style reasonable-fear defense, and overwhelming evidence showed defendant never complied with the statute’s immediate reporting requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court committed plain error by not sua sponte instructing that reasonable fear of harm can excuse failure to stop under § 14-224(a) | State: No plain error; the charge correctly stated statutory elements and allowed consideration of excuses | Bialowas: Court should have instructed jury that reasonable fear of harm (per Rosario) could excuse failure to stop | No plain error: instruction ‘‘for any reason or cause’’ was sufficient; even if omission were error, defendant failed second plain-error prong (no manifest injustice) |
| Whether Rosario-created emotional-fear exception requires express instruction | State: No; jury instructions need only be correct, adapted to issues, and sufficient | Bialowas: Rosario exception is applicable and required an explicit charge | Held: Rosario’s concept fits within the court’s wording; explicit separate instruction not required here |
| Whether counsel’s closing argument required the court to sua sponte give an instruction matching defense argument | State: Arguments are not evidence and do not dictate instructions | Bialowas: Robust Rosario argument in closing made instruction necessary | Held: Instructions are based on evidence, not counsel’s rhetoric; no requirement to mirror closing argument |
| Whether omission met plain error standard after McClain (Kitchens waiver not fatal) | State: Even under plain error, defendant cannot satisfy either prong | Bialowas: Remanded to consider plain error; argues omission was plain and prejudicial | Held: Court applied plain error test (McClain), found omission not obvious error and not resulting in manifest injustice; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (trial instruction waiver rule) (waiver where counsel had meaningful opportunity to review and accepted charge)
- State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802 (plain error reversibility; Kitchens waiver does not bar plain error review)
- State v. Jamison, 320 Conn. 589 (plain error two-prong test)
- State v. Myers, 290 Conn. 278 (clarifying "plain"/"obvious" element of plain error)
- State v. Bellamy, 323 Conn. 400 (plain error as extraordinary remedy)
- State v. Roger B., 297 Conn. 607 (defendant entitled to correct, adequate instructions)
- Stafford v. Roadway, 312 Conn. 184 (test for adequacy of jury charge)
- State v. Wooten, 227 Conn. 677 (presumption jury follows court's instructions)
- State v. Rosario, 81 Conn. App. 621 (limited exception: reasonable fear of bodily harm may justify leaving scene)