STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. CARLTON HENDERSON, SC 20990Judicial District of New London

Criminal; Whether Trial Court Abused Its Discretion in Not Giving Jury Instruction on Extreme Emotional Disturbance. The defendant lived with the victim, his girlfriend, and her minor son in Stonington; the defendant and the victim had been in a relationship for approximately ten years. In November 2019, the victim expressed her frustration with the defendant's failure to maintain steady employment to her mother and said that she was "done" with the relationship. The victim stayed with her mother for Thanksgiving and returned to her home the following day. The next morning, on November 30, 2019, the victim and the defendant engaged in a physical struggle as the victim was leaving to get food from a nearby McDonald's, and, in the process, entered the bedroom of the victim's son. The victim was stabbed during the struggle and later died of her injuries. The victim's son went to a neighbor to seek help, and the neighbor called 911. Just after the police arrived, the defendant drove away in his car. The police attempted to pursue the defendant after he fled but could not locate him. On December 4, 2019, the defendant visited a friend in Norwich, who contacted the police, and the defendant was arrested the following day. He was ultimately charged with murder and risk of injury to a minor. At trial, the defendant testified in relevant part that the victim had approached him with a knife during the November 30, 2019 incident, that he "lunged for . . . and got the knife," that they began to struggle, and that "it was like a blur from there." He additionally testified that he and the victim had previously fought about his employment status and that he was scared of losing her and breaking up his family. The defendant requested that the trial court give a jury instruction on extreme emotional disturbance, and the trial court declined, concluding that "there is no evidence, including circumstantial, that would be sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant was under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance and not something other than mere annoyance or unhappiness with the situation." The jury found the defendant guilty of both charges, and he was sentenced to a total effective term of 70 years to serve. He now appeals from his conviction directly to the Supreme Court under General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). The Supreme Court will decide whether the trial court abused its discretion and violated the defendant's right to present a defense by denying his request for a jury instruction on extreme emotional disturbance, where the defendant argues that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the instruction given his stress over his relationship with the victim and her son, his increased consumption of alcohol and drugs in response, his shock at seeing the victim approach him with a knife, and his lack of recall regarding the incident.