State v. James E., 173 A.3d 380

Defendant (James E.) retrieved a gun from a kitchen cabinet during a dispute with his cousin Douglas E. while his three‑year‑old child stood near the living room/kitchen doorway a few feet away.
The defendant turned the gun across the doorway toward Douglas, bringing the firearm across the child’s position; Douglas lunged, a scuffle for the gun ensued, and shots were fired, wounding Douglas.
The child cried, shouted “don’t shoot,” clung to the defendant, and was carried out after the incident; no physical injury to the child was alleged.
Defendant was charged, tried, and convicted of, inter alia, risk of injury to a child under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53‑21(a)(1) (alleging endangerment of life or limb); the Appellate Court affirmed based on an uncharged theory (risk to mental health).
This Court granted certification, agreed the Appellate Court relied on an uncharged theory, and reviewed whether sufficient evidence supported conviction under the charged “life or limb” theory.
Court concluded a reasonable jury could find the defendant wilfully created a situation endangering the child’s life or limb and acted with the requisite general intent (reckless disregard).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict under § 53‑21(a)(1) for placing a child in a situation endangering life or limb	The state: proximity, defendant’s turning of the gun across doorway, chaotic struggle and sudden shots support that the child was placed in danger and defendant acted with reckless disregard	Defendant: no testimony placing child in room at moment of shooting, no evidence child was in line of fire or could have been hit or by ricochet; insufficient proof of danger or reckless disregard	Affirmed: jury could reasonably infer the child was in close proximity and effectively placed in the line of fire by defendant’s actions; taking the gun knowing the child was nearby showed reckless disregard and satisfied general intent requirement

State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138 (Conn. 2005) (uncharged theory cannot be used to sustain conviction under information)
State v. Payne, 240 Conn. 766 (Conn. 1997) (situation prong of § 53‑21(a)(1) covers life or limb, health, and morals theories)
State v. Scruggs, 279 Conn. 698 (Conn. 2006) (no actual injury required; state must show willful creation of a risky situation)
State v. Na’im B., 288 Conn. 290 (Conn. 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and inferences for intent)
State v. Holley, 144 Conn. App. 558 (Conn. App. 2013) (proximity to a violent struggle in confined space supports life or limb theory)
State v. VanAllen, 140 Conn. App. 689 (Conn. App. 2013) (pointing or firing a gun in presence of child can support endangerment even without direct trajectory evidence)
State v. Davila, 75 Conn. App. 432 (Conn. App. 2003) (firing into an occupied residence with children present supports life or limb theory)