State v. Chiclana, 149 Conn. App. 130

On October 24, 2010, Chiclana shot and killed Jamese Hudson in her Garden Street apartment in New Haven where she resided with others.
The victim was a friend who had been staying at the apartment; they had previously played a game with a .380 handgun, repeatedly pointing it at one another with the safety engaged.
On October 23, 2010, the night before the fatal shooting, an accidental discharge occurred when the gun fell from Chiclana’s pocket and fired; she claimed the gun jammed and later disposed of the shell and noted three bullets remained in the clip.
Chiclana was arrested and charged with manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm and carrying a pistol without a permit; the state offered an audiotaped interview of her following arrest.
At trial, the defense objected to part of the audiotape describing the prior accidental discharge; the court admitted the audio and provided a transcript to the jury.
The jury acquitted Chiclana of first-degree manslaughter but found her guilty of second-degree manslaughter with a firearm and of carrying a pistol without a permit; she was sentenced to a total term of fifteen years, with eleven years suspended.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the unraised claim of uncharged misconduct was reviewable	Chiclana contends the accidental-discharge statement was uncharged misconduct evidence.	Chiclana argues the court should have treated it as misconduct evidence and applied the rule against such evidence.	Claim not reviewable; not preserved for review.
Whether the accidental-discharge statement was relevant to the charged offenses	State contends the statement showed state of mind and recklessness prior to the fatal shooting.	Chiclana asserts the statement was not relevant to the charged offense.	Statement was properly admitted as relevant to recklessness and state of mind.

State v. McCoy, 91 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2005) (defendant’s state of mind may be proven by conduct before, during, and after the shooting)
State v. McMahon, 257 Conn. 544 (Conn. 2001) (state-of-mind and recklessness standards for firearm manslaughter)
State v. Pena, 301 Conn. 669 (Conn. 2011) (two-pronged analysis for uncharged misconduct evidence)
State v. Hill, 307 Conn. 689 (Conn. 2013) (plain error review limitations; preservation rules)
State v. Gant, 231 Conn. 43 (Conn. 1994) (misconduct evidence not always prohibited when offered for proper purposes)
DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, P.C., 297 Conn. 105 (Conn. 2010) (ambush concerns when defending against evidentiary objections)
State v. Kantorowski, 144 Conn. App. 477 (Conn. App. 2013) (relevance and materiality standards for evidence)
State v. Johnson, 288 Conn. 236 (Conn. 2008) (instructing jury on homicide theories; proper adaptation of law)
State v. Huckabee, 41 Conn. App. 565 (Conn. App. 1996) (evidence not offered as misconduct evidence; limitations)