State v. Henderson, 353 Conn. 433

Henderson was convicted of murder and risk of injury to a child for stabbing the victim in the presence of the victim’s 12-year-old son.
Victim had been trying to end the ten-year relationship due to Henderson’s PCP and alcohol abuse, and financial dependency; she asked him to move out.
Henderson moved for a jury instruction on extreme emotional disturbance (EED); the trial court denied.
Evidence included Henderson’s testimony of drug use, threats, and a knife threat by the victim, plus postcrime actions suggesting consciousness of guilt.
The court rejected EED as a defense; the judgment of conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
Judgment affirmed; one justice dissented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly denied an EED instruction	Henderson contends EED evidence required instruction	State argues no sufficient EED evidence	No error; insufficient EED evidence for instruction
Whether Henderson satisfied the subjective element of EED	Evidence showed unusual stress from relationship end and threats	Subjective disturbance existed	Subjective element not proven by preponderance
Whether the postcrime conduct negates EED	Postcrime acts could be consistent with EED	Postcrime conduct negates loss of self-control	Postcrime conduct undermines EED; supports no instruction
Whether the objective reasonableness of the EED excuse was shown	Defendant’s view of circumstances could explain EED	Evidence insufficient to show reasonable explanation	Evidence insufficient for reasonable explanation under Elliott guidelines
Whether the decision aligns with governing EED standards and related case law	Person would mandate instruction in some circumstances	Person does not create per se entitlement; facts here differ	Not entitled to EED instruction; consistent with State v. Person and related jurisprudence

State v. Person, 236 Conn. 342 (Conn. 1996) (establishes two-element EED defense and standard for juror instruction)
State v. Forrest, 216 Conn. 139 (Conn. 1990) (three Elliott guidelines for extreme emotional disturbance; two elements and reasonableness must be shown)
State v. Ortiz, 217 Conn. 648 (Conn. 1991) (connects EED standard to related statutory provisions)
State v. Elliott, 177 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1979) (articulates guidelines for extreme emotional disturbance and self-control)
People v. Wells, 101 A.D.3d 1250 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) (postattack behavior and memory loss evidence used to assess EED decline in well-defined context)
State v. Crespo, 246 Conn. 665 (Conn. 1998) (postcrime conduct and concealment evidence affecting EED analysis)
State v. Patterson, 229 Conn. 328 (Conn. 1994) (evidence and timing considerations in evaluating extreme emotional disturbance)
State v. Jusino, 163 Conn. App. 618 (Conn. App. 2016) (considerations of postcrime conduct and EED evidence in evaluating charge)
State v. Cannon, 165 Conn. App. 324 (Conn. App. 2016) (postcrime conduct and its impact on EED analysis)
State v. Peters, - (-) ((not used; placeholder only if applicable))