STATE v. CHRISTOPHER J. IVERSON, SC 20844Judicial District of Waterbury

Criminal; Murder; Evidence; Whether Trial Court Improperly Denied Request to Instruct Jury on Lesser Included Offense of Manslaughter in First Degree; Whether Admission of Autopsy Report under General Statutes § 19a-412 Violated Defendant's Right to Confront Witnesses. Around 7:15 a.m. on the morning of August 28, 2018, the victim, Solita Billups, was discovered stabbed to death on the floor. The victim's husband reported that he had worked overnight, and, upon returning home in the morning, heard their eleven-year-old son, Gerald, yelling and discovered the victim's body. Gerald told the police that, around 1 a.m., he was awakened and witnessed the victim being stabbed by the defendant, who was a family friend and had previously had an affair with the victim. Gerald detailed that the defendant had tied him to a chair before leaving the residence and that he observed smoke coming from his mother's bedroom before losing consciousness. The defendant was charged with, inter alia, murder, and, at trial, he testified that the victim had summoned him to her residence on the evening of August 27, 2018, to sign documents to remove him from her cell phone service plan. The defendant recounted that he told the victim that evening that they should "come clean" with their spouses about the earlier affair. Upon discovering that the victim did not have the documentation, the defendant protested, and the victim stated in response, "well, you're not going to leave here alive anyway." The defendant testified that the victim struck him with a frying pan while wielding a knife in her other hand and stabbed herself. The victim chased the defendant into her bedroom, where she lit a lighter, "locked it," and threw it at the defendant, but it landed on the bed. The defendant then ran into Gerald's room, where he saw Gerald tied to a chair. The defendant described a struggle that ensued between him and the victim, which resulted in him "pass[ing] out." When he awoke, he saw the victim lying on the ground with the knife embedded in her, which he removed before leaving. At the charge conference, the defendant argued that the jury should be instructed on the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree. He asserted that his intent was at issue and that there was evidence that he had acted with "reckless indifference," which was insufficient intent for a murder conviction but would permit the jury to find him guilty of the lesser included offense. The state, relying on the nature of the wounds, the defendant's self-defense claim and his testimony that whoever killed the victim had killed her intentionally, argued that "recklessness is not in play." The trial court denied the request to charge in light of the defendant's testimony and "no other evidence [that] would indicate . . . recklessness." The defendant was convicted of, inter alia, murder and appeals directly to the Supreme Court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly declined to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter because the court failed to consider whether the defendant acted "recklessly with extreme indifference to human life," for purposes of a manslaughter conviction, or whether the evidence was sufficiently negated the specific intent required for murder. The defendant also claims that an autopsy report admitted into evidence pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-412 was testimonial hearsay that violated his right to confront witnesses under United States Supreme Court precedent, including Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and its progeny, which was decided after the passage of § 19a-412.