State v. Baptiste
Decision Date | 21 February 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 28718.,28718. |
Citation | 36 A.3d 697,133 Conn.App. 614 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Oles J. BAPTISTE. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Annacarina Jacob, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Lisa A. Riggione, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael L. Regan, state's attorney, and Stephen M. Carney, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
LAVINE, BISHOP and SCHALLER, Js.
The defendant was convicted of assault of a peace officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a–167c and two counts of interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a–167a. On remand from our Supreme Court,1 the defendant claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it had to consider the reasonableness of the force used by the police in determining whether the officer was acting “in the performance of his duties” at the time of the assault, thereby violating the defendant's due process rights to present a defense and to have the state prove every element of the crime charged. 2 Accordingly, the defendant seeks reversal of the judgment and an order remanding the case to the trial court for a new trial.3 We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The relevant factual and procedural history was set forth in our previous opinion as follows. “The jury reasonably could have found the following relevant facts. On November 29, 2005, at approximately 3 p.m., Detectives James Tetreault 4 and Corey Poore, of the Norwich police department, set up surveillance for drug related activities outside the residence of Robert L'Homme, located at 28 8th Street in Norwich. During the surveillance, the officers observed a motor vehicle with three occupants stop at L'Homme's residence. The passenger in the front seat exited the vehicle, entered the residence and in less than one minute returned to the vehicle. The officers followed the vehicle for approximately 200 or 300 yards until it left the road. The officers approached the vehicle and spoke with the occupants, who admitted that they had purchased crack cocaine from a Jamaican male inside of L'Homme's residence. At that time, the officers decided to return to L'Homme's residence with another detective, Robert Blanch, to investigate the drug dealer.
5 6
7
State v. Baptiste, 114 Conn.App. 750, 752–54, 970 A.2d 816 (2009), rev'd, 302 Conn. 46, 23 A.3d 1233 (2011).
As set forth in our previous opinion, the defendant testified as to the following facts.8 “At approximately 3 p.m. on November 29, 2005, the defendant was in Norwich on business and saw L'Homme on the street. 9 L'Homme waved to the defendant, and the defendant pulled his vehicle over to speak with him. The defendant asked L'Homme about the injuries to L'Homme's face, which looked like the result of a beating. L'Homme stated that he could not stay outside but invited the defendant into his apartment to talk. L'Homme and the defendant entered the apartment and proceeded to the bedroom where a woman was sitting. L'Homme introduced her as his girlfriend, gave the defendant beer and sat down next to the woman. The defendant sat down in a chair in front of L'Homme and the woman.
11
Id., at 755–57, 970 A.2d 816. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
We begin our analysis with the standard of review of the defendant's claim. “The principal function of a jury charge is to assist the jury in applying the law correctly to the facts which they might find to be established ... and therefore, we have stated that a charge must go beyond a bare statement of accurate legal principles to the extent of indicating to the jury the application of those principles to the facts claimed to have been proven....
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. George B., 258 Conn. 779, 797, 785 A.2d 573 (2001).
“In determining whether the jury was misled, it is well established that [a] charge to the jury is not to be critically dissected for the purpose of discovering possible inaccuracies of statement, but it is to be considered rather as to its probable effect upon the jury in guiding...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bellamy
...claim under Kitchens and remanding case to Appellate Court, which subsequently found instructional error in State v. Baptiste , 133 Conn.App. 614, 628, 36 A.3d 697 [2012], appeal dismissed, 310 Conn. 790, 83 A.3d 591 [2014] ); State v. Brown , 299 Conn. 640, 659–60, 11 A.3d 663 (2011) ; Sta......
-
State v. Outlaw
...is not entitled to an instruction on self-defense." State v. Davis , 261 Conn. 553, 573, 804 A.2d 781 (2002) ; State v. Baptiste , 133 Conn. App. 614, 626 n.16, 36 A.3d 697 (2012), appeal dismissed, 310 Conn. 790, 83 A.3d 591 (2014) ; State v. Salters , 78 Conn. App. 1, 5, 826 A.2d 202, cer......
-
State v. Dunstan, 33789.
...and unnecessary force by a police officer would place the actions outside the performance of that officer's duties. State v. Baptiste, 133 Conn.App. 614, 627, 36 A.3d 697, cert. granted on other grounds, 304 Conn. 921, 41 A.3d 661 (2012); 4State v. Salters, 78 Conn.App. 1, 5–6, 826 A.2d 202......
-
State v. Dunstan
...and unnecessary force by a police officer would place the actions outside the performance of that officer's duties. State v. Baptiste, 133 Conn. App. 614, 627, 36 A.3d 697, cert. granted on other grounds, 304 Conn. 921, 41 A.3d 661 (2012);4 State v. Salters, 78 Conn. App. 1, 5-6, 826 A.2d 2......
-
Tort Developments in 2011
...(2011). 30. Id. at 406. 31. Id. at 407. 32. Id. at 409-10. 33. 132 Conn. App. 750, 751, 756, 34 A.3d 418, cert. denied, 303 Conn. 937, 36 A.3d 697 (2012). 34. General Statutes § 13a-144 provides in part: "No such action shall be brought except within two years from the date of such injury, ......