State v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 20 October 2020
• Docket Number: AC 42703
• Citation: 241 A.3d 517,201 Conn. App. 21
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Lonnie ANDERSON
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

201 Conn.App. 21

241 A.3d 517

STATE of Connecticut

v.Lonnie ANDERSON

AC 42703

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 20, 2020

Officially released October 20, 2020

Vishal K. Garg, West Hartford, for the appellant(defendant).

Timothy F. Costello, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, former state's attorney, and C. Robert Satti, Jr., supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee(state).

Lavine, Bright and Beach, Js.^*

BRIGHT, J.

The defendant, Lonnie Anderson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree by means of the discharge of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a)(5)¹ and of assault of a peace officer by means of the discharge of a firearm in violation of

General Statutes § 53a-167c (a)(1);² his sentence was enhanced pursuant to General Statutes § 53-202k.³On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly declined to instruct the jury on self-defense.We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record reveals the relevant procedural history and facts, which the jury reasonably could have found.On the evening of October 6, 2009, State Marshals Arthur Quinn, Charles Valentino, Joseph Butler, and Richard Krueger went to 434 Indian Avenue in Bridgeport to serve a capias warrant authorizing the marshals to take the defendant into custody for failing to appear at a court proceeding.At approximately 7:45 p.m., the marshals arrived at the residence.Quinn and Valentino went to the front door, and Butler and Krueger went to the rear of the residence.Quinn and Valentino walked up to the residence and knocked on the door.Quinn and Valentino wore clothing that identified them as state marshals and displayed badges.Neither marshal carried a firearm.Valentino was in possession of the capias warrant and wore a utility belt on which were attached handcuffs, gloves, Mace, and a police baton.

An eight year old relative of the defendant answered the door, and the marshals asked to speak with the defendant.The child left and returned with Lyman Anderson, the defendant's brother.Utilizing a photograph of the defendant, Quinn and Valentino recognized that Lyman Anderson was not the subject of the capias.Lyman Anderson then went back into the home, and the defendant came to the front door.

The defendant arrived at the front door armed with a nine millimeter semiautomatic pistol that he kept concealed in his sweatpants.Upon inquiry about his identity, the defendant falsely replied that he was John Anderson.The marshals responded that he was Lonnie Anderson, informed him that he had missed a court date, and stated to him that they had a capias warrant for him.The marshals told the defendant that they intended to take him into custody.The defendant took a step back, drew his pistol, and chambered a round.Valentino spotted the firearm and shouted "[g]un!"The marshals ran off the doorstep and headed in opposite directions.

As they were running away from the defendant's residence, Quinn and Valentino heard several gunshots and Valentino perceived a bullet passing near his head.Valentino heard additional gunshots as he sought cover behind a parked van.Valentino observed, through the vehicle's windows, the defendant standing on the top step of the stoop and shooting toward Quinn.Valentino also saw the defendant discard an ammunition magazine and reload a second magazine into the pistol.

As Quinn was running, he heard multiple gunshots and felt a bullet hit his left foot.Quinn also sustained a second gunshot wound to his right forearm.A neighbor emerged from his home with a towel to help stop the bleeding from Quinn's arm.

A few minutes later, Bridgeport Police Officer Hugo Stern received a call, via a police broadcast, about the incident.Stern arrived at the Indian Avenue residence and saw uniformed state marshals taking cover near a red vehicle.Stern also observed someone matching the description of the shooter.Stern aimed his gun at that person, who was the defendant, and ordered him to raise his hands.The defendant complied.

As Stern cautiously approached the defendant, he noticed that the defendant wore an empty holster on his right hip.Stern ordered the defendant to lie on the ground slowly, and the defendant complied.Stern directed the defendant to spread his arms and legs on the ground, and the defendant appeared cooperative.After Stern holstered his own weapon and attempted to handcuff the defendant, the defendant resisted by rising into a crouch and acting combative.Stern saw the defendant reach into the waistband of his pants and try to retrieve an item.Bridgeport Police Officer Bobby Jones arrived at the scene subsequent to Stern's arrival and came to Stern's assistance.Both officers subdued the defendant.As the officers rolled the defendant over, they observed that the defendant had been lying on top of a semiautomatic handgun.The officers seized the weapon, and later testing demonstrated that the weapon was the same gun from which several shots had been fired.Additionally, the weapon had been reloaded with a magazine full of cartridges.

In a substitute information, the state charged the defendant with two counts of attempt to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49and53a-54a (a), one count of assault in the first degree by means of the discharge of a firearm, one count of assault of a peace officer by means of the discharge of a firearm, and with the commission of class A, B, or C felonies with a firearm in violation of § 53-202k.

On April 25, 2011, the first day of evidence in the defendant's trial, defense counsel filed the following request to charge on self-defense: "Criminal Jury Instructions 2.8-1 Self-Defense and Defense of Others—§ 53a-19.In addition to the language in the pattern instruction, we request the following: ‘It is a matter of public interest that potential defenders be able to act without fear that they will be criminally liable if they guess wrong about the person they are defending's rights.’SeeCommissioner v. Martin , 369 Mass. 640, 649, 341 N.E.2d 885(1976).The Connecticut constitution, article I, § 15, protects one's right to carry arms for his own defense and the defense of the State, and presumably for the defense of others.Should you believe that testimony, the fact that the accused might have brought a weapon to the conflict should not have been a factor in the trial court's analysis nor should it affect this court's analysis of the self-defense issue.Under the common law, the fact that a defendant arms himself after an altercation with an aggressor is consistent with self-defense.See, e.g., Bishop, Bishop on Criminal Law, 9th Ed. § 845 at 601(1923)."

After both parties rested, the court held a charge conference that addressed the requested instruction on self-defense.During the conference, defense counsel, to support the requested charge, relied on the testimony of Lyman Anderson and Bridgeport Detective Mark Belinkie, who had interviewed Lyman Anderson following the defendant's arrest and who also had spoken to Valentino about what had occurred.

Lyman Anderson had provided the following trial testimony relevant to the defendant's requested self-defense charge.The defendant, Lyman Anderson, Lyman Anderson's fiancée, and several acquaintances were using phencyclidine (PCP) and marijuana on the evening of October 6, 2009.Later, in the same evening, Lyman Anderson was eating in the kitchen when he heard radio dispatches going off at the front door.He

went to the front door to get his young relative away from the door.Lyman Anderson identified several marshals by their uniforms; he also observed that a marshal was armed, and that the marshals were holding papers.At least one of the marshals was wearing a hat identifying him as a marshal.Lyman Anderson testified that he initially observed approximately four marshals at the front door.He also testified that he originally told the Bridgeport police during a police interview that he had initially observed only two marshals at the front door.He stated that he remembered seeing the defendant come down the stairs and hearing the marshals ask the defendant if he was Lonnie Anderson.Lyman Anderson testified that the defendant provided a false name to the marshals.He also testified that he did not observe that the marshals were armed until a marshal stepped in the door to grab the defendant and testified further that he did not observe the defendant fire a gun.He testified that, during the shooting, he took his nephew away from the gunfire and went to the basement of the residence.He also testified that, after firing at the marshals, the defendant did not want to go outside to surrender because he was concerned that the marshals would fire back at him.

Belinkie testified, relevant to the defendant's request to charge, that Valentino told him that Quinn tried to grab the defendant before the defendant drew his weapon and began firing.

Defense counsel argued that the testimony of Lyman Anderson and Belinkie was sufficient to support a self-defense charge because the jury reasonably could conclude that the defendant's drug use, coupled with armed men trying to grab him caused the defendant to fear for his life and defend himself with deadly force.Counsel further stated: "Now I—I'd be the first to admit that's not, you know, the strongest evidence out there that I've seen in cases.But I think with the slight standard

or no matter how slight, I think, is a language the [cases] ... used, I would submit that's enough.And I'll just—with those comments, I'll of course—I object if it's not done, but obviously I don't have any further comments."

The state objected to the defendant's requested instruction on the ground of the absence of any evidence of self-defense, and it argued further that Belinkie's testimony was not proffered as...