State v. James E., 112 A.3d 791

Defendant James E. was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of assault of an elderly person in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and risk of injury to a child.
The elderly victim, Douglas E., rented the defendant’s apartment and had come to repair the kitchen floor on multiple occasions.
On March 23, 2010, the victim and three workers were in the apartment when a verbal confrontation occurred after the defendant demanded the workers leave for lunch.
The defendant retrieved a handgun, racked the gun, and shot the victim at close range; the victim was over sixty at the time and survived after surgery.
The defendant pointed the gun at the victim’s head and threatened to kill him, while his young child was in another room and shouted for him not to shoot.
The jury found the defendant guilty on all charged counts and the trial court imposed a twenty-year sentence with ten years to serve and three years of probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Insufficiency of evidence for assault counts	James E. argues the State failed to prove intent or extreme indifference.	The State did not disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.	Sufficiency found; evidence supported intent and recklessness.
Sufficiency for reckless endangerment	Evidence failed to show extreme indifference to life.	Arming for self-protection cannot evince extreme indifference.	Sufficient evidence of reckless endangerment.
Risk of injury to a child sufficiency	Conduct in presence of child endangered the child’s health or mental health.	Defendant’s actions were not sufficient for injury under the statute.	Sufficient evidence for the child-risk conviction.
Prosecutorial impropriety during closing	Prosecutor’s rhetoric misled jury and commented on defense without evidence.	Remarks were improper and unfairly influenced the verdict.	No reversible prosecutorial impropriety; arguments within proper bounds.
Duty to retreat instruction / self-defense charge	Court should have given a retreat instruction after prosecutor’s comments.	No duty to retreat existed for a dwelling defense; instruction unnecessary.	Court did not err in denying supplemental duty-to-retreat Instruction.

State v. Denby, 235 Conn. 477 (1995) (enhanced penalty for elderly victim under § 53a-59a)
State v. Jupin, 26 Conn. App. 331 (1992) (inference of intent from circumstantial evidence; reasonable view of evidence)
State v. Salaman, 97 Conn. App. 670 (2006) (intent may be inferred from circumstances; successful conviction on inferred facts)
State v. Dawes, 122 Conn. App. 303 (2010) (prosecutor’s closing remarks responsive to defense arguments)
State v. Edward M., 135 Conn. App. 402 (2012) (credibility-focused closing argument; proportional limits of rhetoric)
State v. Lemoine, 256 Conn. 193 (2001) (adequacy of jury instruction; duty to retreat discussion)
State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693 (2002) (prosecutor’s closing arguments and burden of proof)