184 Conn. App. 402
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Lin Qi Si, a commercial bus driver, struck and killed pedestrian Pui Ying Tam Li while making a legal left turn at an intersection on December 5, 2012; defendant did not see decedent until impact.
- Video and eyewitnesses placed the decedent in the crosswalk and more than halfway across the road when struck; an expert reconstructed that she was in the far-side crosswalk at impact; bus had no mechanical defects.
- Trooper testimony established the pedestrian signal at the decedent’s starting point was flashing or solid red when she began crossing (i.e., she crossed against the signal).
- Defendant was charged and convicted of negligent homicide with a commercial motor vehicle in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-222a(b); sentenced to six months (execution suspended) and two years probation.
- On appeal defendant challenged (1) the trial court’s proximate-cause jury instructions (arguing the court failed to instruct that decedent’s sole proximate cause is a complete defense and that instructions were misleading) and (2) the court’s provision of a copy of the charge to the jury during deliberations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to instruct that decedent’s negligence as the sole proximate cause is a complete defense | The charge contained the substance required: proximate cause is an element the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt | Court omitted the verbatim requested sentence and thereby failed to instruct that sole proximate cause is a complete defense | Affirmed — substance of requested instruction was included; proof the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause is incompatible with a sole-proximate-cause defense |
| Whether portions of the proximate-cause instruction were materially misleading (e.g., suggesting the state must disprove that decedent’s negligence "led directly" to death) | The overall charge, read as whole, fairly presented law and in fact heightened the state’s burden | The instruction could have led jurors to disregard the decedent’s conduct and ignore sole-proximate-cause defense | Affirmed — although some wording overstated the state’s burden, that benefitted defendant and any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of defendant’s proximate causation |
| Whether giving the jury a copy of the charge during deliberations was improper | Court may supply written instructions to jury at its discretion | Providing the charge improperly influenced deliberations | Affirmed — submitting written instructions to the jury is permissible and within the trial court’s discretion |
| Whether contributory negligence (common-law) should have been considered | State: claim abandoned | Defendant: argued decedent’s contributory negligence should be considered | Not reached — claim abandoned on appeal (insufficiently briefed/preserved) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Leroy, 232 Conn. 1 (1995) (minimum elements required in proximate-cause jury instruction)
- State v. Spates, 176 Conn. 227 (1978) (definition of proximate cause in criminal context)
- State v. Scribner, 72 Conn. App. 736 (2002) (contributory negligence is no defense unless it is sole proximate cause)
- Rawls v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., 310 Conn. 768 (2014) (concurrent causes can each be proximate causes if substantially contributing)
- State v. Jennings, 216 Conn. 647 (1990) (permissibility of submitting written instructions to jury)