State v. Marshall
33 A.3d 297
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- On July 26, 2007, defendant Charles Marshall entered 29 Waterville Street with intent to steal and later entered 103 Waterville Street by prying doors open, armed with a tire iron.
- Tito Infante chased Marshall from 103 Waterville Street with a baseball bat; Marshall struck Tito in the head with the tire iron, causing severe injury.
- Marshall was arrested and charged with two counts of burglary in the second degree, two counts of burglary in the first degree, one count of assault in the first degree, and two probation violations.
- At trial, the court found Marshall did not act in self-defense, convicted him on all charges, and revoked probation.
- On appeal, Marshall argued insufficiency of the evidence (self-defense, 103 Waterville Street burglary first degree, identity of perpetrators) and abuse of discretion on probation violation; the appellate court affirmed the judgments.
- The court noted relevant self-defense standards and applied them to determine whether the state disproved Marshall’s claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-defense sufficiency | Marshall contends State failed to disprove his self-defense claim | Marshall argues he reasonably believed deadly force was needed | Sufficient evidence denied self-defense; state disproved beyond reasonable doubt |
| Burglary in the first degree at 103 Waterville Street | State must prove Marshall was armed and caused injury during burglary | Marshall argues lack of dangerous instrument and injury evidence | Evidence supported first-degree burglary finding for 103 Waterville Street |
| Identity of the burglars | State failed to prove Marshall committed both burglaries | Conflicting clothing descriptions negate identity, screwdriver not found | Evidence sufficient to identify Marshall as the burglar of both locations |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Butler, 296 Conn. 62 (Conn. 2010) (two-step sufficiency review for circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Skelly, 124 Conn.App. 161 (Conn. App. 2010) (self-defense burden on state to disprove defendant's claim)
- State v. Wortham, 80 Conn.App. 635 (Conn. App. 2003) (standard for reviewing sufficiency with defense justification)
- State v. Maxwell, 29 Conn.App. 704 (Conn. App. 1992) (on burglary first degree and in-flight conduct)
- State v. Miller, 122 Conn.App. 631 (Conn. App. 2010) (credibility assessment by trial court in bench trial)