Opinion
Thе defendant, Latoya T. Abney, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence probative of her claim of self-defense, (2) in excluding that evidеnce, the court deprived her of the right to establish a defense under the United States and Connecticut constitutions, (3) the court improperly instructed the jury on the issues of self-defense and reasonable doubt, and (4) the court improperly allowed the state to make racially motivated peremptory strikes that violated her fеderal and state constitutional rights to an impartial jury. We conclude that the court improperly excluded evidence that was corroborative of her claim of self-defense and that the exclusion of that evidence was harmful to the defendant. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.
The following facts are pertinent to our discussion of the issues on appeal. In the early morning of April 9, 2000, the defendant’s former boyfriend, Kirk McLeod, and an acquaintance, Thomas Jones, came to the defendant’s apartment in Waterbury, ostensibly for McLeod to retrieve his personal belongings because his relationship with the defendant recently had ended. When McLeod first entered the apartment, he used the defendant’s telephone. After concluding his call, McLeod approached the defendant, who was lying on her sofa, and slapped her in the face. Subsequently, while
The defendant was charged with murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. At trial, the defendant claimed self-defense. She testified that when she cut McLeod with the knife, she feared for her safety. To suppоrt her claim that she reasonably believed it was necessary to defend herself, she testified that on October 4, 1996, McLeod had struck and kicked her in the stomach while she was pregnant, and that he had bitten her on the shoulder, causing injuries for which she required emergency medical attention.
At trial, the defendant sought to introduce medical rеcords regarding the October 4, 1996 hospital visit. The records show, inter alia, that the defendant, while pregnant, received treatment at the Woodhull Medical Center emergency room in Brooklyn, New York, that the defendant reported being assaulted repeatedly in the abdomen, that the hospital staff performed a sonogram tо examine the fetus, that the defendant suffered a human bite on her shoulder and that she was treated as a high priority trauma patient. The state objected
The defendant claims that the court improperly excluded evidence that was relevant to her theory of self-defense. Specifically, she claims that the court abused its discretion by excluding hospital records corroborating her claim thаt she sustained injuries from an alleged October 4, 1996 altercation with McLeod. The defendant maintains that the medical records should have been admitted at trial to show (1) her subjective perception that McLeod’s physical aggression was likely to cause her grievous bodily harm and
“As a threshold matter, we set forth the standard by which we review the trial court’s determinations concerning the [admissibility] of evidence. The trial court’s ruling on evidentiary matters will be overturned only upon a showing of a clear abuse of the court’s discretion. . . . We will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Crocker,
I
“When determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, our review is limited to the questions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. DeBarros,
“As defined by our Supreme Court, the best evidence rule requires a party to produce an original writing, if it is available, when the terms of that writing are material and must be proved. . . . The basic premise justifying the rule is the central position which the written word occupies in the law.” (Citations omitted; emрhasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Cadle
“[W]e are authorized to rely upon alternative grounds supported by the record to sustain a judgment.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Advanced Financial Services, Inc. v. Associated Appraisal Services, Inc.,
As to the first claim, thе failure of the records to identify the defendant’s assailant pertains to the weight and not the admissibility of the records. See State v. Evans, 44 Conn. App. 307, 314,
The proffered evidence was, however, relevant to the defendant’s claim of self-defense. “Connecticut Code of Evidence § 4-1 provides in relevant part that [Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is material to the determination of the proceeding more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. As it is used in the code, relevance represents two distinct concepts: Probative value and materiality. . . . Conceptually, relevance addresses whether the evidence makes the existence of a fact material to the determination of the proceeding more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. . . . [I]t is not necessary that the evidence, by itself, conclusively establish the fact for which it is offered or render the fact more probable than not. ... In contrast, materiality turns upon what is at issue in the case, which generally will be detеrmined by the pleadings and the applicable substantive law. ... If evidence is relevant and material, then it may be admissible.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Izzo,
A cursory review of the law regarding self-defense amply demonstrates the relevance of the proffered evidence. “Under our Penal Code, self-defense, as defined in [General Statutes] § 53a-19 (a) ... is a defense, rather than an affirmative defense. . . . That is, [the defendant] merely is required to introduce sufficient evidence to warrant presenting his claim of self-defense to the jury. . . . Once the defendant has done so, it becomes the state’s burden to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. ... As these principles indicate, therefore, only the state has a burden of per
“It is well settled that under § 53a-19 (a), a person may justifiably use deadly physical force in self-defense only if he reasonably believes both thаt (1) his attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force against him, or is inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm, and (2) that deadly physical force is necessary to repel such attack. . . . [Our Supreme Court] repeatedly [has] indicated that the test a jury must apply in analyzing the second requirement, i.e., that the defendant reasonаbly believed that deadly force, as opposed to some lesser degree of force, was necessary to repel the victim’s alleged attack, is a subjective-objective one. The jury must view the situation from the perspective of the defendant. Section 53a-19 (a) requires, however, that the defendant’s belief ultimately must be found to be reasonable. . . .
“The subjective-objective inquiiy into the defendant’s belief regarding the necessary degree of force requires that the jury make two separate affirmative determinations in order for the defendant’s claim of self-defense to succeed. First, the jury must determine whether, on the basis of all of the evidence presented, the defendant in fact had believed that he had needed to use deadly physical force, as opposed to some lesser degree of force, in order to repel the victim’s alleged attack. . . . If . . . the jury determines that the defendant in fact had believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, the jury must make а further determination as to whether that belief was reasonable, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the defendant’s circumstances.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Clark,
The crux of the defendant’s claim is that she acted in justifiable self-defense in stabbing McLeod. She testi
Evidence that had a logical tendency to show that McLeod was violent toward the defendant in the past was relevant to a determination of whether the defendant аcted in justifiable self-defense. The record of the defendant’s October, 1996 hospital treatment provided independent corroboration of her claim that McLeod previously had been violent toward her. That history was relevant to whether the defendant did, in fact, fear for her life in the altercation with McLeod and whether hеr fear was well-founded. See State v. Collins,
We conclude that the corut abused its discretion by excluding the medical records regarding the defendant’s emergency medical care on October 4, 1996, because that evidence of a prior incident of an assault on the defendant would have been relevant to show that she reasonably feared for her safety in this instance.
II
Having concluded that the court improperly excluded the proffered evidence, we turn to the question of whether the court’s decision constituted harmful error. In this instance, we are satisfied that the defendant has demonstrated a sufficient probability that the court’s improper ruling likely affected the result of the trial. The exclusion of the hosрital records especially was detrimental because proof that the defendant reason
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Notes
Because we agree with the defendant on her first claim, which is dispositive, we do not reach any of her other claims. The defendant’s other claims likely will not recur at retrial.
The court concluded: “The medical records that are corroborative, if you will, of a person’s testimony [are] not the best evidence. The best evidence is the testimony of the witness herself. And [the defendant] did testify [as to] exactly what happened, that she was treated in the hospital, and there has been no cross-examination that has, to this court’s recollection, that that testimony concerning the incident nor the treatment was contested.”
The prosecutor stated in relevant part during closing argument: “Again, with respect to what the defendant was thinking that night and any fear that she might have had of Mr. McLeod. When you listened to that testimony that shе gave regarding the incident in New York . . . [a]nd if you listen to that testimony, even that seems physically impossible because she talks about in the course of this fight, we were lacing each other and then he reached over and bit me on the shoulder and, she said, back here, as she was moving backward. He must have been quite an athlete. It makes no sense. . . . She never said she feared great bodily harm and, again, even if that incident occurred, the injury was a bite mark, a kick to the stomach.” (Emphasis added.)