State v. Nicholson, 155 Conn.App. 499

Victim (Cleary) confronted defendant (Nicholson) at his apartment about loud music; an altercation ensued inside lasting only seconds.
Defendant punched the victim, struck him with an umbrella and a stool, then picked up a knife and stabbed the victim in the back; the wound proved fatal.
Witness (Tracy Wright) intervened, pulled the victim toward the door; she did not see the stabbing or blood; victim told his wife he had been stabbed as he collapsed outside.
Defendant was charged with murder, claimed defense of premises/justification (trespasser, initial aggressor, feared for life); jury acquitted on murder but convicted of first‑degree manslaughter.
On appeal defendant argued (1) the state failed to disprove his premises justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2) prosecutorial improprieties in closing (conjecture and misstating the law).

Issue	State's Argument	Nicholson's Argument	Held
Sufficiency to disprove premises justification	Evidence showed defendant was initial aggressor, used excessive force, stabbing may have occurred after victim was leaving — therefore justification disproved beyond a reasonable doubt	Defendant argued he produced evidence that victim was trespasser and aggressor and that deadly force was reasonably necessary	Affirmed: evidence was sufficient for jury to reject justification (victim not trespasser/initial aggressor or force excessive/altercation over before stabbing)
Prosecutor asserted facts not in evidence (timing/location of stabbing; wiping blood)	Prosecutor’s inferences were grounded in detective testimony (floor appeared wiped), witness testimony, and defendant’s admissions; argument within permissible inferences	Claimed prosecutor’s conjecture (stabbing in doorway/after fight) was improper	No impropriety: remarks were reasonable inferences from evidence; no objection at trial; no prejudice found
Prosecutor misstated law re: deadly force to repel intruder	Even if inartful, comment was isolated, court instructed jury on correct law, and Williams factors show no deprivation of fair trial	Argued prosecutor wrongly told jury occupant cannot use deadly force to repel intruder	Harmless: trial court’s instructions cured any potential error; defendant not deprived of fair trial

State v. Revels, 313 Conn. 762 (2014) (burden rules for self‑defense/justification: defendant has burden of production; state must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Terwilliger, 294 Conn. 399 (2009) (defendant must produce sufficient evidence to raise defense of premises)
State v. Johnson, 71 Conn. App. 272 (2002) (jury decides whether state disproved justification beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Jordan, 314 Conn. 89 (2014) (framework for reviewing prosecutorial impropriety)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (1987) (factors to assess whether prosecutorial remarks denied a fair trial)
State v. Andrews, 313 Conn. 266 (2014) (defense counsel’s failure to object relevant in impropriety review)
State v. Otto, 305 Conn. 51 (2012) (prosecutor may not misstate law; closing arguments reviewed in context)
State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563 (2004) (jurors presumed to follow court’s instructions)