159 Conn.App. 618
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Kmel Kelly Davis was tried for murder, assault, and illegal possession of a pistol after a September 30, 2011 shooting that killed Melvin Galloway and wounded Demetrius Wilkes; jury convicted of first‑degree manslaughter and illegal possession, acquitting on murder and assault counts.
- Eyewitnesses (Jones, McNatt, Wilkes) testified Davis sold drugs shortly before the incident, fought with Galloway on a porch, was wrestled to the ground, and then pulled a gun and fired after a break; witnesses said victims were unarmed and were shot while fleeing.
- Defendant testified he acted in self‑defense, claiming Wilkes attempted to draw a pistol and he fired while still under attack; physical evidence (blood trail off porch, lack of stippling) and lack of defendant wounds contradicted his account.
- Defendant surrendered to police ten days later; charged, tried, and convicted by a jury of manslaughter in the first degree (lesser included offense) and carrying a pistol without a permit.
- On appeal, Davis argued (1) insufficiency of the evidence because the state failed to disprove his self‑defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) trial court erred by refusing jury instructions that used the phrase "not guilty" in place of "innocent" regarding presumption of innocence and burden of proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence re: self‑defense | Evidence (eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, lack of defendant wounds) disproved self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt | Use of deadly force was reasonable because he believed he faced imminent great bodily harm (Wilkes tried to draw a gun) | Affirmed: viewing evidence favorably to verdict, jury reasonably rejected self‑defense; evidence sufficient to convict of manslaughter |
| Jury instruction wording on presumption and burden | Traditional instructions using term "innocent" correctly explain presumption and burden of proof | Court should have used phrase "not guilty" instead of "innocent"; difference may mislead jury to think it must find innocence to acquit | Affirmed: traditional wording is correct and, read in entirety, adequately and accurately instructed jury; no unfairness |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pauling, 102 Conn. App. 556 (Conn. App. 2007) (self‑defense is fact question for jury)
- State v. Johnson, 71 Conn. App. 272 (Conn. App. 2002) (jury may draw inferences consistent with guilt)
- State v. Wortham, 80 Conn. App. 635 (Conn. App. 2003) (standard for reviewing sufficiency when justification defense raised)
- State v. Pranckus, 75 Conn. App. 80 (Conn. App. 2003) (deadly force justified only if belief of imminent deadly force or great bodily harm is reasonable)
- State v. Lavigne, 307 Conn. 592 (Conn. 2012) (jury charge must fairly present case as a whole)
- State v. Dickson, 150 Conn. App. 637 (Conn. App. 2014) (instruction using term "innocent" for presumption of innocence is legally correct)
- Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (presumption of innocence requires jury avoid suspicion from arrest/indictment and decide on legal evidence)