179 Conn. App. 345
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Vaughn Outlaw was convicted by a jury of assault of public safety personnel for spitting saliva at a correction officer during escort at Northern Correctional Institute.
- Incident facts: officers escorted defendant from the shower to his cell; leg shackles were removed at the cell; surveillance video and eyewitness testimony showed the defendant spat at the officer as the cell door was closing.
- Defendant testified he had been mishandled during escort (alleging the officer used a ‘‘monkey paw’’ with the shackles) and denied or disputed spitting, asserting excessive/unwarranted force by the officer.
- Trial court read the standard elements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-167c(a)(5) and instructed that the jury must find the officer was acting in the performance of his duties; it did not give the more detailed instruction stating that unreasonable force places the officer’s conduct outside the performance of duties.
- Defense counsel did not request the detailed instruction on unreasonable force at trial; a brief in-chambers colloquy occurred where counsel agreed the self-defense portion was not requested, creating ambiguity whether counsel waived the detailed ‘‘performance of duties’’ instruction.
- On appeal, Outlaw claimed plain error from the court’s failure to give the detailed instruction that unreasonable or excessive force is not within an officer’s duties; the trial court judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Outlaw) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant waived request for detailed instruction that unreasonable force is not within an officer’s duties | Defense explicitly waived such instruction during colloquy; no error preserved | Colloquy was ambiguous; waiver not clear | Record ambiguous as to explicit waiver; but implicit waiver under Kitchens applied; plain error review permitted |
| Whether omission of detailed instruction constituted plain error warranting reversal | No obvious, patent error; failure to request and temporal facts undermine claim | Omission was obvious and harmful because defendant testified to excessive force, so jury could have found officer was not acting in performance of duties | Reversal not warranted: defendant failed to show patent, obvious error or manifest injustice |
| Whether a detailed ‘‘in performance of duties’’ instruction (in lieu of self-defense) was required when defendant alleges officer used excessive force | Court not required to give irrelevant or unrequested instruction; defense did not press it at trial | Trial evidence (defendant’s testimony) required detailed instruction per Davis line of cases | Court’s instruction tracked statutory elements; absence of detailed language not plainly erroneous given facts (spitting occurred after alleged mishandling) |
| Application of plain error standard (two-prong requirement) | Plain error doctrine should not apply because no clear harm | Meets first-prong (obvious) and second-prong (manifest injustice) | Defendant did not satisfy either prong; plain error not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 261 Conn. 553 (Conn. 2002) (detailed instruction that officer acted in performance of duties stands in lieu of self-defense when excessive force is alleged)
- State v. Salters, 78 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2003) (correction officer’s reasonable force is within duties; excessive force places actions outside performance of duties)
- State v. Baptiste, 133 Conn. App. 614 (Conn. App. 2012) (defendant entitled to detailed ‘‘in performance of duties’’ instruction instead of self-defense)
- State v. Dunstan, 145 Conn. App. 384 (Conn. App. 2013) (officer’s reasonable force inherent to duties; unreasonable force takes conduct outside duties)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2011) (defendant may implicitly waive appellate challenges to jury instructions after receiving proposed charge and affirmatively accepting it)
- State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802 (Conn. 2017) (Kitchens waiver does not foreclose plain error review)
- State v. Jamison, 320 Conn. 589 (Conn. 2016) (plain error doctrine is an extraordinary remedy requiring patent error and manifest injustice)