State v. HELMEDACH
2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 534
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- David Bell, a drug dealer, abused both the defendant and Sevilla-Cruz, his two girlfriends, at his Middletown residence.
- Bell attacked Sevilla-Cruz, who was pregnant, resulting in his imprisonment for a year after a hospital-stay incident.
- After Bell's release, the defendant again lived with him and stayed with him and Bell for periods.
- In August 2004, the defendant and Bell planned to rob Faye Bennett; on September 2, 2004, Bell stabbed Bennett and the defendant helped steal her belongings.
- Bell and the defendant fled to New Jersey and New York, where they were later apprehended, and the defendant was convicted of felony murder, conspiracy to rob in the third degree, and robbery in the first degree.
- The defendant argues two issues: (A) whether the court erred in not defining “situation” for the duress defense, and (B) whether the statutory exception to duress should have been charged given the trial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of ‘situation’ under duress law | Helmedach: court should define to time of crime | Helmedach: define as context of September 2, 2004 | No duty to define; common meaning applied |
| Jury instruction on duress exception | State: instruction correct as given | Defendant: additional clarification needed | Instruction, viewed as a whole, properly instructed; not misleading |
| Evidence supports duress exception charge | State: sufficient evidence to support charge | Defendant: not enough to support recklessness placing in duress | Sufficient evidence supports charging the statutory duress exception |
| Response to jury clarification requests | State: proper to reiterate burden of proof | Defendant: additional guidance needed | Court's response properly clarified burden and relieved confusion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Castillo, 121 Conn.App. 699, 998 A.2d 177 (2010) (review of jury instructions as a whole; not misled)
- State v. St. Pierre, 58 Conn.App. 284, 752 A.2d 86 (2000) (duty to instruct jury on law; clear instructions required)
- State v. Fletcher, 10 Conn.App. 697, 525 A.2d 535 (1987) (clarification of instructions when jury shows confusion)
- State v. Heinemann, 282 Conn. 281, 920 A.2d 278 (2007) (duress statute; hybrid objective-subjective test for recklessness)
- State v. Ovechka, 292 Conn. 533, 975 A.2d 1 (2009) (fact-finding within jury’s exclusive province)
- State v. Mungroo, 104 Conn.App. 668, 935 A.2d 229 (2007) (jury decides competing inferences)
- State v. Scribner, 72 Conn.App. 736, 805 A.2d 812 (2002) (proper scope of requested jury instructions)
- State v. Ramos, 261 Conn. 156, 801 A.2d 788 (2002) (use of common knowledge of terms in instructions)
- State v. Dickman, 119 Conn.App. 581, 989 A.2d 613 (2010) (definition of terms under common usage)