State v. Scribner

• Decision Date: 01 October 2002
• Docket Number: (AC 20985)
• Citation: 805 A.2d 812,72 Conn. App. 736
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. WILLIAM R. SCRIBNER.

72 Conn. App. 736

805 A.2d 812

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. WILLIAM R. SCRIBNER.

(AC 20985)

Appellate Court of Connecticut

Argued March 22, 2002

Officially released October 1, 2002

Schaller, Spear and Hennessy, Js.¹

John J. Kelly, for the appellant (defendant).

John A. East III, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Frank S. Maco, state's attorney, and Kevin S. Russo and Ronald G. Weller, assistant state's attorneys, for the appellee (state).

Opinion

HENNESSY, J.

The defendant, William R. Scribner, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of negligent homicide with a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 14-222a. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly refused to instruct the jury that contributory negligence is a valid defense under General Statutes § 14-283² to the charge of negligent homicide with an emergency vehicle. We conclude that the defendant was not entitled to the requested jury instruction because it was an incorrect statement of the law. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts are relevant to the resolution of the defendant's appeal. While on duty in his patrol car on June 16, 1998, the defendant, a New Milford police officer, responded to a "code three" call, the highest priority call, by the police dispatcher for all available units to respond to a brawl involving as many as twenty combatants at Warner Beach on Candlewood Lake. With the emergency lights flashing on his patrol car, the defendant followed another patrol car operated by Officer James Antonelli southbound on Route 7 toward Warner Beach. Evidence was presented at trial that the defendant's patrol car followed Antonelli's patrol car through the intersection where the accident occurred at a distance of approximately three hundred to five hundred feet. Approximately one-half mile from where the defendant and Antonelli entered Route 7, the highway intersects with Sunny Valley Road. As the patrol cars approached the intersection, Angela D'Aquila's vehicle entered Sunny Valley Road and proceeded toward Route 7. After Antonelli's vehicle passed through the intersection of Route 7 and Sunny Valley Road, D'Aquila began to turn left onto Route 7. As D'Aquila entered Route 7, the defendant continued southbound on Route 7. Upon seeing D'Aquila's vehicle, the defendant braked and slid until the left front portion of his vehicle collided with the operator's side door of D'Aquila's vehicle. D'Aquila died as a result of injuries sustained in the collision.

On April 11, 2000, the state filed an amended long form information alleging that the defendant negligently had operated his vehicle at or near the intersection of Route 7 (Danbury Road) and Sunny Valley Road in New Milford, causing the death of D'Aquila in violation of § 14-222a, in that the defendant had "proceeded past a red light without slowing down or stopping to the extent necessary for the safe operation of his motor vehicle, exceeded the posted speed limit and endangered life by doing so and therefore breached his duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons and property." On April 19, 2000, the jury found the defendant guilty of negligent homicide with a motor vehicle in violation of § 14-222a. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly refused to instruct the jury that contributory negligence constitutes a defense under § 14-283 to a charge of negligent homicide with a motor vehicle in violation of § 14-222a. The defendant acknowledges that the instruction given to the jury by the court in the present case is consistent with Connecticut case law stating that contributory negligence is not a defense to negligent homicide with a motor vehicle.³ He argues, however, that he nonetheless was entitled to the requested instruction because the legislature could not have envisioned the result in this case when it enacted § 14-283. Specifically, he argues that the court's jury charge without the additional requested instruction fails to give § 14-283 effect and causes a "bizarre result," whereby he could be convicted of a crime while being exonerated from any liability in a civil action on the basis of the same facts. The defendant's claim is without merit.

Initially, we set forth the standard of review. "It is well established that [a] request to charge which is relevant to the issues of the case and which is an accurate statement of the law must be given." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bonan v. Goldring Home Inspections, Inc., 68 Conn. App. 862, 867, 794 A.2d 997 (2002). Conversely, it also is true that a court is under no duty to give a requested jury instruction that is an improper statement of law. Accordingly, if this court concludes that the requested jury instruction was an improper statement of law, the defendant is not entitled to the requested jury instruction and the court's refusal was proper. In State v. Nesteriak, 60 Conn. App. 647, 654, 760 A.2d 984 (2000), this court stated that § 14-283 (b) does not immunize the operator of an emergency vehicle from criminal liability for a violation of § 14-222a, negligent homicide with a motor vehicle. The defendant argues that our discussion in Nesteriak regarding the interaction of § 14-283 with § 14-222a is merely dicta and not binding on this court because the defendant in that case was not charged with negligent homicide with a motor vehicle. We disagree with the defendant's assertion that the discussion of those statutes in Nesteriak is dicta.

The fact that the defendant in Nesteriak was not charged with negligent homicide does not undermine the precedential force of our discussion of §§ 14-222a and 14-283 or its effect of serving notice of this court's conclusion that the protections against liability afforded under § 14-283 do not apply to a charge of negligent homicide with a motor vehicle. The legitimacy of the proposition from Nesteriak, on which we now rely, not only is supported by Connecticut case law, but also by what we interpret as the legislature's intent when enacting § 14-283 (b) (3).

In State v. Pope, 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 712, 714, 313 A.2d 84 (1972), the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court held that the general rule that contributory negligence is not a defense in a criminal case applies in a negligent homicide case where ordinary negligence is one of the required elements, unless such negligence on the part of the decedent is found to be the sole proximate cause of his death. We adopt the appellate division's reasoning in Pope and thus conclude that the requested jury instruction is an improper statement of law. Accordingly, the court properly denied the defendant's request.

Further, we note that the court's instruction as given in the present case did not cause a bizarre result unintended by the legislature when enacting § 14-283 (b) (3). The language of the statute clearly limits...