SC20990 - State v. Henderson ("Nearly thirty years ago, then Justice Robert J. Callahan anticipated the need for a particularized evidentiary showing of extreme emotional disturbance in intimate partner homicide cases in order not to establish 'a per se rule that anyone who kills a former girlfriend or boyfriend is entitled to a jury instruction on extreme emotional disturbance.' State v. Person, 236 Conn. 342, 361–62 and n.1, 673 A.2d 463 (1996) (Callahan, J., dissenting). Justice Callahan's observation is instructive as we consider the appeal of the defendant, Carlton Henderson, who was convicted, after a jury trial, of the murder of his long-term girlfriend (victim) in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court's denial of the defendant's request to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance under § 53a-54a (a) entitles him to a new trial. We disagree and affirm the judgment of conviction.")