STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ANTHONY V., SC 21050

Judicial District of New Haven

Criminal; Whether Appellate Court Correctly Concluded That It Was Plain Error Not to Instruct on General Intent When Defendant Was Charged with Manslaughter in the First Degree with a Firearm and His Theory of the Case Was That His Conduct Was Accidental. On October 17, 2020, the victim sustained a fatal gunshot wound to the head in the bathroom of the apartment that she shared with the defendant, with whom she was romantically involved. The defendant was arrested and charged with manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-55 (a) (3) and 53a-55a. General Statutes § 53a-55a provides in relevant part that "a person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm when he commits manslaughter in the first degree as provided in section 53a-55, and in the commission of such offense he uses, or is armed with and threatens the use of or displays or represents by his words or conduct that he possesses a . . . firearm,’’ while § 53a-55 (a) (3) provides in relevant part that ‘‘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.’’ The defendant's theory of the case was that he was cleaning his loaded gun in the bedroom of the apartment when he decided to go to the bathroom to get napkins for the task and, while he was walking towards the bathroom with the gun in his hand, he tripped and fell forward, inadvertently striking the head of the victim, who was sitting on the toilet, and causing the gun to accidentally discharge. The state, however, claimed at trial that the defendant and the victim were having an argument when the defendant intentionally pressed the muzzle of the gun to the victim's head and that the defendant's reckless conduct, evincing an extreme indifference to human life, created a grave risk of death to the victim and thereby caused her death. The jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, and he appealed his conviction to the Appellate Court (227 Conn. App. 281), which reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. The Appellate Court did not agree with the defendant that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction but did agree with him that the trial court's failure to instruct to instruct the jury on general intent constituted plain error. The Appellate Court observed that the mens rea element of the manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm charge required proof that the defendant had the general intent to engage in conduct that evinced an extreme indifference to human life, created a grave risk of death to the victim, and thereby caused her death and that the state accordingly bore the burden of proving that the defendant acted volitionally to use the gun in the commission of the offense by intentionally placing it against the victim's head. The jury instructions, however, made no express reference to the general intent requirement and in fact made no reference to intent at all. The Appellate Court agreed with the defendant that the jury could not have appreciated the significance of his theory of the case, and could have found him guilty of accidental or involuntary as opposed to volitional or intentional conduct, without an instruction regarding the general intent requirement. The Appellate Court further rejected the state's argument that the trial court's instruction on the element of recklessness was sufficient to inform the jury of the general intent requirement. It noted that the critical issue for the jury was whether the defendant intentionally pressed the muzzle of the gun against the victim's head before she was shot or whether the gun was accidentally discharged when the defendant tripped and fell, and it determined that, "when, as here, there is evidence to support the defendant's contention that the conduct resulting in the victim's death was accidental, an instruction on general intent that fully explains the requirement of volitional or deliberate conduct as distinguished from conduct that is inadvertent or accidental is vital to a fair trial lest the jury find the defendant guilty on the basis of such unintentional conduct." The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court's charge failed to meet the fundamental requirements of clearly, accurately, and completely instructing the jury on the pertinent principles of law and the essential elements of the crime, such that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial and a reasonable verdict. The Supreme Court granted the state certification to appeal from the Appellate Court's judgment, and it will decide whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that it was plain error not to instruct on general intent when the state charged the defendant with manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-55 (a) (3) and 53a-55a (a), and the defendant's theory of the case was that his conduct was accidental.