State v. Chyung, SC19375

Background

Defendant Chihan Eric Chyung shot and killed his wife; charged with murder and first‑degree manslaughter with a firearm after the jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts.
Defendant testified the gun accidentally discharged while he was packing to leave after an argument; prosecution argued he intentionally shot her.
Jury convicted on both murder (requires intent) and manslaughter‑with‑a‑firearm (requires recklessness), and defendant moved for judgment of acquittal and a new trial asserting the verdicts were legally inconsistent.
Trial court denied the new‑trial claim as waived for failure to request a jury instruction forbidding conviction on both charges, but vacated the manslaughter verdict under double jeopardy principles and sentenced defendant for murder.
The defendant also challenged admission of an uncharged‑misconduct statement from a former partner (Febles) describing a prior firearm threat; trial court admitted it to rebut accident/mistake, and defendant appealed that evidentiary ruling.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether legally inconsistent guilty verdicts (intentional murder + reckless manslaughter) may be raised postverdict without a prior request for an instruction	Defendant waived the claim by not requesting an instruction under Kitchens	No instruction was required; inconsistent verdicts are jury error and may be raised after verdict	A defendant need not request a charge; postverdict challenge is permissible; inconsistent verdicts require vacatur and new trial
Whether these specific convictions were legally consistent because they could reflect different acts/results (reckless act then separate intentional failure to act)	Jury could have found two distinct acts (reckless firing + intentional failure to render aid)	Parties tried the case solely on a single‑act theory; state never advanced the two‑act theory at trial	Rejected: state never presented that theory at trial, so cannot rely on it on appeal
Whether manslaughter‑with‑a‑firearm is a lesser included offense of murder and thus convictions can co‑exist	Manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder under Rodriguez; convictions may stand as lesser/greater	Recklessness and intent are mutually exclusive; Rodriguez does not cure inconsistency when jury finds both mental states for same act/result	Manslaughter is a cognate lesser included offense, but because intent and recklessness are mutually exclusive for the same act/result, both verdicts are legally inconsistent and both must be vacated
Admissibility of Febles’ uncharged‑misconduct statement to prove intent/absence of accident	Evidence was admissible under exception to propensity ban (to prove intent/absence of mistake)	Statement was remote, unreliable, and prejudicial; Febles never reported it earlier and brand of gun issue undermines probative value	Trial court did not abuse discretion: similarities made the evidence probative and remoteness did not render it inadmissible

Key Cases Cited

State v. King, 216 Conn. 585 (Conn. 1990) (legally inconsistent verdicts that require mutually exclusive mental states must both be vacated)
State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2011) (preservation rule for claims of instructional error when counsel had opportunity to object)
State v. Nash, 316 Conn. 651 (Conn. 2015) (standard for determining mutually exclusive convictions)
State v. Polanco, 308 Conn. 242 (Conn. 2013) (trial court must vacate convictions for lesser included offenses when both greater and lesser are convicted)
State v. Rodriguez, 180 Conn. 382 (Conn. 1980) (manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder under Connecticut law)
Carpenter v. Commissioner of Correction, 290 Conn. 107 (Conn. 2009) (discussing tension between Rodriguez and mutually exclusive mental‑state precedent)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of charged crime)