189 Conn. App. 151
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Victim: four‑month‑old daughter (V) had facial bruising after defendant attempted to suction her nose with a bulb syringe; bruises discovered at hospital and deemed non‑medical in origin.
- Defendant initially could not explain bruises; later admitted he held V’s face hard while suctioning, saying he lost control and held her "a 10" on a scale.
- Medical testimony described extensive facial bruising and subconjunctival hemorrhages; child could not roll over, so injuries attributed to external force.
- Defendant was charged with one count of risk of injury to a child under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53‑21(a)(1); he pled not guilty and was tried by jury.
- At trial defense argued the injuries were accidental (inadvertent use of excessive force); defense requested an explicit accident jury instruction.
- Trial court instructed on general intent (stating the state must prove defendant intentionally, not accidentally, engaged in the conduct) and on parental justification; defendant convicted and appealed claiming the court failed to instruct on accident.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to give a separate "accident" jury instruction | Court’s general intent instruction was sufficient and defendant waived precise requested language; accident is not a separate justification | Failure to give explicit accident charge denied due process; jury should be told to acquit if force was accidental | No reversible error: general intent instruction expressly covered accident and a separate accident instruction was not required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martin, 189 Conn. 1, 454 A.2d 256 (Conn. 1982) (accident instruction required where facts show wholly reflexive, involuntary conduct).
- State v. McClary, 207 Conn. 233, 541 A.2d 96 (Conn. 1988) (§ 53‑21 requires general intent to perform act, not specific intent to injure).
- State v. Moye, 119 Conn. App. 143, 986 A.2d 1134 (Conn. App. 2010) (accident negates intent and does not require a separate instruction where intent instruction covers it).
- State v. Singleton, 292 Conn. 734, 974 A.2d 679 (Conn. 2009) (no separate accident charge required in certain contexts).
- State v. Boyd, 176 Conn. App. 437, 169 A.3d 842 (Conn. App. 2017) (trial court need not adopt request to charge verbatim so long as substance is given).
- State v. Harper, 184 Conn. App. 24, 194 A.3d 846 (Conn. App. 2018) (court not required to give requested instruction that is not an accurate statement of law).