State v. Grasso, 189 Conn. App. 186

Angela Grasso, a bail bondsperson, shot and killed Jose Mendez while seated as his passenger; she was convicted of first‑degree manslaughter with a firearm and sentenced to 25 years (including a 5‑year mandatory minimum).
Grasso and Mendez had a brief romantic/financial relationship during which Grasso paid for rentals and gave money; Mendez repeatedly threatened to expose information about Grasso’s employer and made threats to kill Grasso and her family.
On the day of the shooting Mendez sent threatening texts, demanded money, and drove Grasso around after a failed clinic visit; Grasso retrieved a handgun from her purse and shot him when he slowed near a fast food restaurant.
Grasso told police she shot because Mendez had said he would drive to her home, kill her family in her presence, then kill her; she claimed it was her last chance to stop him.
The jury was instructed on statutory self‑defense (§ 53a‑19); Grasso argued she reasonably believed deadly force was imminent and necessary. The jury acquitted her of murder but convicted of manslaughter.

Issue	State's Argument	Grasso's Argument	Held
Whether the state failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that Grasso acted in self‑defense (deadly force justified under § 53a‑19)	Texts, behavior, and opportunities to avoid violence showed the shooting was to stop blackmail/ protect employment rather than to repel an imminent deadly attack; jury could disbelieve Grasso’s account	Grasso sincerely believed Mendez was about to use deadly force and that shooting then was necessary — it was her only chance	Affirmed: state proved beyond a reasonable doubt Grasso did not act in lawful self‑defense; any perceived threat was to occur in the future, not imminent, and her belief was not objectively reasonable
Whether the court’s refusal to rehear closing arguments during deliberations violated due process or the right to effective assistance (and whether the claim is reviewable)	Court properly declined and instead reread instructions; defense counsel expressly approved the response at trial, waiving appellate review	Trial court’s answer deprived Grasso of due process and effective assistance because jury specifically requested rehearing of closings	Affirmed: claim waived because defense counsel expressly agreed to the court’s response; therefore Grasso cannot prevail under Golding review

State v. Revels, 313 Conn. 762, 99 A.3d 1130 (Conn. 2014) (framework for assessing whether state disproved a justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Clark, 264 Conn. 723, 826 A.2d 128 (Conn. 2003) (self‑defense is a non‑affirmative defense; state must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt after defendant makes a prima facie showing)
State v. Reddick, 174 Conn. App. 536, 166 A.3d 754 (Conn. App. 2017) (discussion of § 53a‑19 elements and jury analysis)
State v. Singleton, 292 Conn. 734, 974 A.2d 679 (Conn. 2009) (state may defeat self‑defense by disproving any element beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Gooch, 186 Conn. 17, 438 A.2d 867 (Conn. 1982) (credibility of defendant and witnesses central to self‑defense claim)
State v. Lewis, 220 Conn. 602, 600 A.2d 1330 (Conn. 1991) (self‑defense does not permit preemptive strikes)
State v. Bryan, 307 Conn. 823, 60 A.3d 246 (Conn. 2013) (defendant may not use force when risk can be avoided by waiting)
State v. Peters, 40 Conn. App. 805, 673 A.2d 1158 (Conn. App. 1996) (defendant must honestly believe other was using or about to use force)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 567 A.2d 823 (Conn. 1989) (standard for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 120 A.3d 1188 (Conn. 2015) (modification of Golding review standard)