State v. AlstonState v. Alston
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hull
The defendant was convicted, after a trial to a jury, of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of
The charges arose from a dispute between the defendant and her sister, Pamela Alston, during which the defendant stabbed Pamela fatally. While there was conflicting testimony as to the circumstances surrounding the stabbing, the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On the date of the incident, the
The defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court failed to charge the jury properly concerning the general intent element of manslaughter under
“Our general rule is that ‘[t]he appellate court shall not be bound to consider error as to the giving of, or the failure to give, an instruction unless the matter is covered by a written request to charge or an exception has been taken immediately after the charge is delivered by the party appealing.’
Here, counsel for the defendant did not submit a written request to charge on general intent. He did, however, object to the charge the trial court gave.2 In making his objection, counsel argued that “the definition of the elements ‘extreme indifference’ and the definition of recklessness itself . . . seem to indicate at least some type of intent.” (Emphasis added.) Counsel further stated: “I think the definition of those two terms require[s] an intent.” Counsel, however, never specified what type of intent should have been charged. Nor did he “state distinctly” how the charge as given was inadequate. Under these circumstances, it cannot
The defendant argues that if the exception was inadequate, her claim still may be reviewed under State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 65-66, 327 A.2d 576 (1973). The state contends that this case is not one which warrants such review. Under the Evans bypass rule “we must first determine whether the charge raises a question of constitutional dimension and, if so, whether the claim has merit. State v. Kurvin, 186 Conn. 555, 557, 442 A.2d 1327 (1982); State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 70, 327 A.2d 576 (1973).” State v. Torrence, 1 Conn. App. 697, 702, 476 A.2d 598 (1984) (Torrence I), aff‘d, 196 Conn. 430, 493 A.2d 865 (1985) (Torrence II). If these two questions are answered affirmatively, we will then review the charge to see if there was error and if so, whether reversal is warranted. Torrence I, supra, 702-705.
“Due process requires that the state establish beyond a reasonable doubt every essential fact necessary to establish the crime charged; Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 204, 97 S. Ct. 2319, 53 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1977); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 698, 95 S. Ct. 1881, 44 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1975); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970); including intent where intent is one of those elements. Mullaney v. Wilbur, supra, 702.” State v. Kurvin, supra, 558. The trial court must, therefore, instruct the jury so that it clearly understands every element of the crime charged. Accordingly, the defendant’s claim that this was not done in this case raises a question of constitutional dimension. Our Supreme Court has “consistently held that colorable claims that jury instructions violated this aspect of due process are appealable even when not raised below. See, e.g., State v. DeMatteo, 186 Conn. 696, 705-706, 443 A.2d 915 (1982); State v. Perez, 181 Conn. 299, 311, 435 A.2d
Appellate review under Evans is limited. “Since an Evans claim by definition alleges a fundamental constitutional error, only certain rules are called into play and they are applied in the rarified context of such an allegation. There is, however, no separate set of substantive standards that produces lowered scrutiny of unpreserved claims of fundamental constitutional deprivation.” Torrence II, supra, 435. We examine the defendant’s claim with these criteria in mind.
To convict the defendant of manslaughter under
The court’s failure to instruct on an essential element of the crime charged, while error, does not automatically require reversal of a subsequent conviction. State v. Kurvin, supra. Rather, “[a]n alleged defect in a jury charge which raises a constitutional question is reversible error if it is reasonably possible that, considering the charge as a whole, the jury was misled. State v. Ruiz, 171 Conn. 264, 273-74, 368 A.2d 222 (1976); State v. Rose, 169 Conn. 683, 687-88, 363 A.2d 1077 (1975).” State v. Smith, supra, 219. “When, as here, a jury instruction is challenged as not merely erroneous but as constitutionally deficient in a fundamental respect, the challenge can succeed only if it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled by the instruction into misunderstanding an issue that has fundamental constitutional significance. See State v. Smith, 194 Conn. 213, 219-20, 479 A.2d 814 (1984); State v. Kurvin, supra, 558, 565, 569.” Torrence II, supra, 435-36. When making this determination, it must be remembered that “[a] court’s charge is not to be examined in a vacuum. Rather, it is to be viewed in the context of the factual issues raised at the trial.” State v. Kurvin, supra, 558.
At trial, the defendant presented only one factual issue relevant to this analysis. She claimed that she did not intend to make the physical movement which resulted in her sister’s death. In support of this version of the stabbing, the defendant testified that her brother James grabbed her arm and tried to prevent her from touching Pamela. The defendant further tes
Under
In reviewing a claim of error in a jury charge “[w]e must examine the issue or issues before the jury, including what was undisputed, and examine the charge ‘in view of the factual posture of the case.’ ” Torrence I, supra, 705, quoting State v. Kurvin, supra, 569. Since the intentional nature of the course of conduct which culminated in the death of Pamela Alston was never contested, it is not reasonably possible that the jury was misled by the court’s failure to charge that the defendant must have intended to do the proscribed act.
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Notes
The court instructed the jury, in pertinent part, as follows: “That section of the Connecticut General Statutes in so far as is pertinent to this case, reads as follows: ‘A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when, under circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person and thereby causes the death of another person.’
“So, in order to find the defendant guilty under this statute, you must find that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt first that the accused, Connie [Alston’s] conduct evinced an extreme indifference to human life; second, that the accused’s conduct created a grave risk of death to another person, in this case, Pamela Alston; third, that the accused, Connie [Alston], in fact caused the death of Pamela Alston; and fourth, that the death of Pamela Alston was caused by the reckless conduct of the accused, Connie [Alston].
“There is no element of any specific intent involved in this statute. The gist of the charge is recklessness. It is not necessary for the State, the prosecution, to prove that the accused intended to kill or hurt her sister with a knife. It is not necessary for the State to prove that she intended to stab Pamela at all.
“The actual stabbing could have been inadvertent. It could have been intentional. You were aware there were two versions of this incident: One by the witness in the window which would indicate that the stabbing was deliberate and one told by the defendant and her family that it was inadvertent. The question for you to determine under either version is did the accused, under circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to human life, recklessly engage in conduct which would create a grave risk of death to another person, in this case, Pamela Alston; and did that reckless conduct cause the death of Pamela Alston.”
Recklessly is defined in
The court’s instruction in this case preceded the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Shine, 193 Conn. 632, 479 A.2d 218 (1984). It is Shine which established that to be guilty of violating