128 Conn. App. 448
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- October 27, 2006: defendant and Hutchinson, mother of his child, argued at Hutchinson's Meriden residence; defendant struck Hutchinson in the face multiple times after she hurled a lotion bottle at him.
- Police observed three fresh bruises on Hutchinson; Hutchinson reported a domestic-violence history and that Lahai had hit her.
- Defendant was arrested and charged by substitute information (Jan. 9, 2008) with assault in the third degree and unlawful restraint; part B of the information charged him as a persistent offender.
- At trial, Lahai testified that Hutchinson threw a lotion bottle, Hutchinson retrieved a knife and tried to stab him, and Lahai hit her in self-defense; jury found Lahai guilty of assault in the third degree and not guilty of unlawful restraint.
- Jury also found Lahai guilty on Part B of the information as a persistent offender; court sentenced him to a total term of five years’ incarceration.
- Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and concluded the challenged self-defense instruction and confrontation claims did not require reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-defense jury instruction correctness | Lahai argues the instruction framed self-defense as an affirmative defense with preponderance standard. | Lahai contends the court erred by misallocating burden and using preponderance standard. | Golding review failed; induced error barred review; instruction affirmed as proper under waiver. |
| Ineffective assistance re self-defense instruction | State asserts no reversible error; defense counsel’s conduct is strategic or non-arguable. | Counsel’s failure to contest instruction faulty; ineffective assistance. | Direct-appeal review not warranted; habeas forum suggested for full evaluation. |
| Confrontation clause in Part B evidence | Police report and inspector testimony were properly admitted. | Police report is testimonial; defendant lacked opportunity to cross-examine. | Police report testimonial; admission violated confrontation clause; harmless error because evidence strong otherwise. |
| Harmlessness of confrontation error | Error was harmless due to substantial other evidence supporting enhanced sentence. | Harmlessness not shown given confrontational flaw. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction and sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2011) (waiver of instructional error when counsel affirms instructions after meaningful review)
- State v. Cruz, 269 Conn. 97 (Conn. 2004) (Golding-type review and preservation concepts applied)
- State v. Ash, 231 Conn. 484 (Conn. 1994) (constitutional dimension of improper defense instructions)
- State v. Dawson, 117 Conn.App. 845 (Conn. App. 2009) (defense-counsel role in jury instruction formation; induced error considerations)
- State v. Favoccia, 119 Conn.App. 1 (Conn. App. 2010) (preservation and waiver principles for claims on appeal)