State v. Cannon, 2016 WL 1742889

Defendant (Patrick Cannon) and victim (Cynthia Cannon) married in 2004 after a relationship dating to 2003; relationship included prior physical abuse, affairs by the victim, financial problems, and frequent arguments.
Defendant lost his job in 2009, stopped mortgage payments, faced foreclosure, and later started businesses; divorce and custody disputes were pending by early 2010.
Night of May 6–7, 2010: defendant attacked the victim in the home—multiple hammer blows to the head, a broken jaw, and two chest stab wounds—killing her.
After the killing the defendant cleaned the scene, transported and concealed the body, discarded weapons and the victim’s phone, abandoned her car to suggest abduction, lied to friends and police, and attempted to dispose of bloody clothes.
Arrested May 10, 2010; tried before a three-judge panel after waiving a jury; defendant admitted the killing but asserted the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED); panel found him guilty of murder and tampering with evidence and rejected the EED defense.
Sentenced to an effective 65 years; on appeal defendant argued the panel erred in finding he failed to prove EED and in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on that basis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant proved the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance by a preponderance of the evidence	The panel’s factual rejection of EED was supported by the record (ongoing stressors, planning, inconsistent testimony); the trier of fact may disbelieve the defendant and his expert	Defendant acted under sudden extreme emotional disturbance caused by cumulative stressors and the May 6–7 argument, reducing murder to manslaughter	Panel reasonably rejected EED; verdict affirmed
Whether the panel should have granted defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on murder because EED was established	The motion properly denied because evidence supported murder conviction and the panel’s factual findings on EED	Motion should have been granted if EED established by preponderance	Denial appropriate; both factual and legal grounds for conviction sustained

State v. Ruben T., 104 Conn. App. 780 (defining elements and burden for extreme emotional disturbance defense)
State v. Ricketts, 37 Conn. App. 749 (factfinder’s role in EED determinations; appellate review limited)
State v. Steiger, 218 Conn. 349 (trier may disbelieve testimony and weigh inconsistencies)
State v. Patterson, 229 Conn. 328 (planning and deliberate conduct as evidence contrary to EED)
State v. Blades, 225 Conn. 609 (relationship history relevant to assessing whether stressor was "extremely unusual and overwhelming")
State v. Crespo, 246 Conn. 665 (EED requires more than mere annoyance or unhappiness)