State v. Lemoine
Decision Date | 13 June 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 14957,14957 |
Citation | 233 Conn. 502,659 A.2d 1194 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Kenneth LEMOINE, Jr. |
Marjorie Allen Dauster, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, State's Attorney, Maxine Wilesky, Asst. State's Atty., and Trisha Morris, Law Student Intern, for appellant (State).
Paul T. Edwards, Sp. Public Defender, for appellee (defendant).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BERDON, NORCOTT and KATZ, JJ.
The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether the trial court, in its jury instructions in a criminal trial, has a constitutional obligation to refer to the evidence relating to the crimes charged in the information. The defendant, Kenneth Lemoine, appealed to the Appellate Court from judgments of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-72a(a)(1)(B), 1 risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21, 2 and two counts of assault of a peace officer in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-167c(a)(1). 3 The Appellate Court reversed the defendant's convictions and ordered a new trial. State v. Lemoine, 33 Conn.App. 743, 754, 641 A.2d 131 (1994). 4 The Appellate Court determined that the trial court's jury instructions had been constitutionally deficient because the court had failed sufficiently to relate the evidence elicited at trial to the various charges contained in the information, thereby denying the defendant his right to due process of law as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution. State v. Lemoine, supra, at 749-54, 641 A.2d 131. We granted the state's petition for certification to appeal. State v. Lemoine, 230 Conn. 909, 644 A.2d 920 (1994). 5 We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.
By way of background, the Appellate Court determined that the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. "On June 20, 1991, the victim, his mother, the defendant, Barbara Tirado and her daughter went to a lake. The victim was eight years old at the time. After staying at the lake, they drove to the home of the defendant's mother, then to the home of his sister and then to Tirado's home located on Maple Street in Meriden. The victim's father later joined the group and the adults all began drinking. The victim fell asleep on the couch in Tirado's home wearing his pants, shirt and underpants. The victim's father was asleep on a chair near the couch and the victim's mother was asleep in another room. The victim awoke to find the defendant placing his hands between the victim's legs on the outside of the victim's pants. The defendant was attempting to pull down the victim's pants. The defendant was behind the victim on the couch and the victim was facing away from the defendant. The defendant told him to be quiet. The victim took off his pants while the defendant continued to touch the outside of the underpants between the legs and then the defendant cut the victim's underpants. The victim was scared and ran to his mother's room and told her what had just occurred.
State v. Lemoine, supra, 33 Conn.App. at 744-47, 641 A.2d 131.
After considering the defendant's claim that the trial court had failed to make sufficient reference to the evidence in its jury instructions, the Appellate Court concluded that "a complete lack of facts in the jury charge creates a reasonable possibility, as a matter of law, that the jury was misled." Id., at 753-54, 641 A.2d 131. On appeal to this court, the state claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that reference to the evidence in the trial court's jury charge was constitutionally mandated. The state argues that the Appellate Court's decision improperly created a per se rule that a jury charge given without a detailed reference to the evidence constitutes, as a matter of law, a constitutional due process violation and reversible error. See id.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Campbell, 225 Conn. 650, 661, 626 A.2d 287 (1993). We will reverse a conviction only if, " 'in the context of the whole, there is a reasonable possibility that the jury was misled in reaching its verdict.' " State v. Scognamiglio, 202 Conn. 18, 28, 519 A.2d 607 (1987); State v. Shannon, 212 Conn. 387, 408, 563 A.2d 646, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 980, 110 S.Ct. 510, 107 L.Ed.2d 512 (1989); State v. Fleming, 198 Conn. 255, 268-69, 502 A.2d 886, cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143, 106 S.Ct. 1797, 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Christopher S.
...his [or her] own opinion of the nature, bearing and force of such evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lemoine , 233 Conn. 502, 510–11, 659 A.2d 1194 (1995) ; see, e.g., id., at 511, 659 A.2d 1194 ("generally the extent to which the [trial] court should discuss the eviden......
- State v. Santiago, No. 17413.
-
State v. Small
... ... Lemoine, 233 Conn. 502, 510, 659 A.2d 1194 (1995). It is axiomatic that, in finding those facts to which it is correct to apply the law so as to reach a ... ...
-
State v. Diaz
... ... Lemoine, 233 Conn. 502, 509, 659 A.2d 1194 (1995) ... Contrary to the defendant's claim, the trial court did not instruct the jury on ... ...
-
State constitutional law in the land of steady habits: Chief Justice Ellen A. Peters and the Connecticut Supreme Court.
...(Conn. 1995). Hilton v. City of New Haven, 661 A.2d 973 (Conn. 1995) & Moore v. Ganim, 660 A.2d 742 (Conn. 1995). State v. Lemoine, 659 A.2d 1194 (Conn. 1995). Serrano v. Aetna Ins. Co. 664 A.2d 1194 (Conn. 1995). State v. Mejia, 658 A.2d 571 (Conn. 1995). State v. Munoz, 659 A.2d 683 (......