State v. White
2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 179
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Block party on Vine Street; White and Carter argued; violence escalated in the hallway at 46-48 Vine Street.
- White lived in 46-48 Vine Street with Latasha Drummond; fight occurred shortly after 9:15 p.m.
- Drummond heard threats and White fires a gun at close range, hitting Carter; White runs from the scene.
- Drummond later saw White discard the gun by wrapping it in a diaper and tossing it away.
- White is located about a month later; while in custody, he writes letters pressuring witnesses to lie.
- Jury convicted White of murder and related offenses; sentence of sixty years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence proves intent to kill | State argues sufficient evidence supports intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt. | White contends the death could be accidental from pistol-whipping; insufficient intent. | Evidence sufficient to support intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Whether the court's credibility instruction improperly affected the presumption of innocence | State contends instruction consistent with precedent and did not prejudice defendant. | White argues instruction improperly highlighted defendant's interest and violated rights. | Instruction not improper; consistent with controlling precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115 (1994) (intent to kill may be inferred from circumstantial evidence; must be proven beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Tomasko, 238 Conn. 253 (1996) (intent to cause death can be inferred from use of deadly weapon and proximity)
- State v. Edwards, 247 Conn. 318 (1998) (arguments between defendant and victim can indicate intent to kill)
- State v. Raguseo, 225 Conn. 114 (1993) (carrying a deadly weapon prior to homicide supports inference of intent)
- State v. Williams, 220 Conn. 385 (1991) (instructional approach regarding credibility and defendant's testimony)
- State v. Mann, 119 Conn. App. 626 (2010) (testimony of defendant must be weighed like other witnesses; references to interest in outcome)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (procedure for reviewing unpreserved constitutional claims)