STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. KIYON MATHENEY, SC 20987

Judicial District of New Haven

Criminal; Whether Trial Court Erred in Failing to Give Jury Specific Unanimity Instruction on Statutory Disqualifications to Self-Defense; Whether Jury Instructions Were Confusing and Misleading; Whether Evidence Was Sufficient to Support Self-Defense Claim and Specific Intent Element of Manslaughter in First Degree with a Firearm. The defendant was charged with several crimes, including murder, in connection with the shooting death of John Tubac-Saquil. The victim was driving in New Haven when he caused his truck to make a loud noise, startling people who were on the street. The victim continued a short distance, parked his truck, and placed a BB gun on the dashboard. The defendant approached the truck on foot and confronted the victim about his aggressive driving. The victim and the defendant then began insulting each other. The defendant said that he was ready to shoot, and the victim grabbed the BB gun. The defendant reached through the window of the truck and attempted to wrestle the BB gun away from the victim. During the struggle, the victim's girlfriend, who was in the passenger seat, kept yelling that it was a fake gun. The defendant took a gun out of his pocket and shot four times, resulting in a fatal injury to the victim and three bullet holes in the driver's side door. A police detective opined that the gun was discharged in haste, as the shots were not well-aimed. At trial, the defendant asserted a claim of self-defense. The state advanced three statutory disqualifications to defeat the self-defense claim, i.e., duty to retreat, provocation, and initial aggressor. The trial court instructed the jury that the state can defeat the self-defense claim "by proving beyond a reasonable doubt any of the statutory disqualifications . . . to your unanimous satisfaction"; that the state "does not have to prove all of these statutory disqualifications"; and that if the jury finds "any one proven, it defeats the defense of justification, meaning self-defense.” The trial court also instructed the jury on murder and three lesser included manslaughter offenses and stated that they should first consider the murder offense and then "[d]eliberate the lesser included offenses." The trial court then gave the jury a document setting forth the sequence of deliberations, which reiterated that they should first consider the murder offense and then "deliberate lesser included offenses." The defendant was acquitted of murder but convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm and two weapons charges. The defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3), claiming that the trial court deprived him of his constitutional rights to due process and a unanimous verdict by failing to give the jury a specific unanimity instruction on the statutory disqualifications to self-defense. The defendant also claims that the trial court’s jury instructions were confusing and misleading because (1) they failed to make clear that the victim may be the initial aggressor; (2) they misled the jury into believing that words alone supported a finding that the defendant was the initial aggressor; and (3) the hard copy of the instructions given to the jury improperly identified two of the lesser included offenses as "deliberate," or intentional, crimes. The defendant additionally claims that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm given the undisputed evidence supporting his self-defense claim and that there was also insufficient evidence of the specific intent element required to support that conviction.