State v. Charles, 2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 128

Defendant Jared Charles was convicted after a jury trial of murder under § 53a-54a, carrying a pistol without a permit under § 29-35, criminal possession of a pistol under § 53a-217c, and possession of narcotics under § 21a-279 (a).
On appeal, Charles challenged the trial court’s failure to sua sponte instruct self-defense and the lesser included offense of manslaughter; the court found waiver.
Facts showed a September 25, 2004 shooting in Hartford: victim Dennis Faniel confronted Charles over a cellular telephone; after an argument, a shot was fired from a 9 mm semiautomatic; Faniel was wounded and later died.
Jayquan Faniel retrieved Faniel’s .38 revolver, chased Charles, who fled; Jayquan fired at Charles, who discarded a gray shirt and left it behind; police recovered the .38 revolver, the shirt with cocaine, and a cellphone.
Witness Natasha Walker, who saw Charles in a gray shirt and heard multiple shots, described Charles running from the scene with a gun; she did not see the shooting itself.
Charles was arrested, evidence was presented over two days, the jury returned verdicts, and he was sentenced to 48 years’ imprisonment; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by not sua sponte instructing self-defense	Charles argues trial court should have given self-defense instruction.	State contends Charles expressly waived this claim at trial.	Waived; no review of merits.
Whether the court erred by not sua sponte instructing manslaughter	Charles argues self-defense/manslaughter should have been charged.	State contends waiver due to defense strategy and failure to object.	Waived; no review of merits.
Whether the court improperly instructed general vs specific intent and inference from circumstantial evidence on the murder charge	Charles contends instructions misstate intent elements and permissible inferences.	State contends no preserved error; implicit waiver due to review opportunity and acceptance of instructions.	Implicit waiver; reversible error not shown.
Whether defense waived the challenge by reviewing and accepting the final instructions	Charles challenges despite review opportunities.	State argues defense implicitly waived by reviewing and not objecting.	Implicit waiver; Golding-based review not applicable.
Whether the case qualifies for plain error review given waiver	Charles seeks plain error review notwithstanding waiver.	State asserts waiver defeats plain error review.	Waiver bars plain error review.

State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (waiver when counsel reviews and affirmatively accepts instructions)
State v. Mungroo, 299 Conn. 667 (2011) (implicit waiver after meaningful review of instructions)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (constitutional claims preserved via Golding test)
State v. Gibson, 270 Conn. 55 (2004) (avoidance of inviting errors when trial strategy is at play)
State v. Jacobowitz, 194 Conn. 408 (1984) (lesser included offenses not constitutionally mandated)