State v. Shaw
Citation | 185 Conn. 372,441 A.2d 561 |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Decision Date | 18 August 1981 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. James SHAW, Jr. |
Richard Emanuel, Asst. Public Defender, with whom, on the brief, was Jerrold H. Barnett, Public Defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Linda K. Lager, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Arnold Markle, State's Atty., and Thomas V. O'Keefe, Asst. State's Atty., New Haven, for the appellee (state).
Before BOGDANSKI, C. J., and SPEZIALE, PETERS, HEALEY and ARMENTANO, JJ.
After a trial to a jury the defendant, James Shaw, Jr., was convicted of first degree assault in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59(a)(1). The defendant has appealed from the judgment rendered thereon, claiming the following as error: (1) the trial court's failure, in its instructions to the jury on self-defense, to charge as requested that the defendant had no duty to retreat in his dwelling and that greater-than-necessary force may be employed when in the heat of passion; (2) the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion in limine and subsequent admission of the defendant's prior manslaughter conviction for purposes of impeachment; and, (3) the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to strike the testimony of an eyewitness and its denial of the defendant's motion for mistrial. We find no error.
The information against the defendant arose from the following incident: Shaw rented one of two bedrooms in a house owned and occupied by Wilson, the person he assaulted. Off the kitchen of this house were doors leading to both bedrooms, to a bathroom, to the hallway, and to the back door-fire escape. Wilson called Shaw to the common area of the house; a discussion escalated to an argument and then a physical altercation; Wilson and Shaw each claimed that the other initiated the tussle. Wilson went to his bedroom and grabbed his .30-30 Winchester rifle with the intention, as he testified, to order Shaw to leave; Shaw went to his bedroom and got his .22 revolver. Weapons in hand, they both entered the kitchen from their respective bedrooms. The defendant, Shaw, fired five or six shots hitting Wilson three times.
In his written request to charge the defendant requested the trial court to instruct the jury, in relevant part, that "(i)f James Shaw actually believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that Andrew Wilson was using or about to use physical force or was inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm on him, and that deadly physical force was necessary to repel such danger, James Shaw was not required to retreat or to consider whether he could safely retreat. He was entitled to stand his ground and to use such force as was reasonably necessary under the circumstances to save his life or to protect himself or others from serious bodily harm.
The trial court, however, in its instructions to the jury on self-defense did not charge as requested that the defendant had no duty to retreat in his dwelling and that greater-than-necessary force may be employed when in the heat of passion; but, instead, it instructed the jury on self-defense as follows: "Now, just what is self-defense, which the State must disprove here? Well, you, of course, heard all of the evidence, and our statutes recognize that a person can use force in defending himself, and one section of our statutes reads as follows: 'A person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself, or a third person, from what he reasonably believes to be the use of imminent-the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use, deadly physical force, or inflicting, or about to inflict, great bodily harm.'
General Statutes § 53a-19 1 governs the degree of force which a person is justified in using to defend his person. One may use "deadly physical force" to defend against another person whom one "reasonably believes" is "(1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm." General Statutes § 53a-19(a). Nevertheless, "a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety (1) by retreating, except that the actor shall not be required to retreat if he is in his dwelling ... and was not the initial aggressor ...." General Statutes § 53a-19(b). Both Wilson and Shaw appeared in the kitchen with loaded firearms capable of inflicting deadly physical harm. There was conflicting testimony as to who was the "initial aggressor." Even if the jury found Shaw to be the initial aggressor, it could not have imposed on him a duty to retreat because the trial court omitted that portion of the statute from its instruction to the jury; and, therefore, in that respect the defendant received a more favorable instruction than he was entitled to receive. The building within which the shooting occurred is clearly a dwelling. It is undisputed that the dwelling was owned by Wilson and that Wilson lived in the second floor apartment. Wilson rented the spare bedroom in his second floor apartment to Shaw, and Shaw was living there at the time of the assault. From the evidence presented the jury reasonably could have found that Shaw had the right to share the use of the kitchen and thus was in "his dwelling" when the shots were fired. Also, the trial court in its charge on self-defense commented to the jury that the testimony would indicate that both Wilson and Shaw were in their dwelling.
The question before us is whether General Statutes § 53a-19 imposes a duty to retreat upon a person in his dwelling when threatened by another person who also dwells in the same place. We have not addressed this question since the codification of the self-defense principle. The statutes which enumerate the situations where the use of force is justified Commission to Revise the Criminal Statutes, Connecticut Penal Code Comments 5-6 (1972).
Precodification Connecticut precedent supports the view that a lodger has a duty to retreat from common areas of the dwelling as against his resident landlord. State v. Johnson, 139 Conn. 89, 90 A.2d 905 (1952). In State v. Johnson, the defendant was living in the basement of the house of his landlord, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Milum
... ... Myers, supra, 468, 479 A.2d 199, and cases cited therein ... In determining whether the requested sanction of striking the complaining witness' testimony 10 should have been granted, our recent cases are instructive. In Myers, we quoted with approval from State v. Shaw, 185 Conn. 372, 386, 441 A.2d 561 (1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1155, 102 S.Ct. 1027, 71 L.Ed.2d 312 (1982), where we explained that " ' "[w]hether or not sanctions for non-disclosure should be imposed depends in large measure upon the extent of the Government's culpability for failure to make ... ...
-
State v. Miller
... ... Townsend, 167 Conn. 539, 563, 356 A.2d 125, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 846, 96 S.Ct. 84, 46 L.Ed.2d 67 (1975); see, e.g., General Statutes § 52-145; 10 Colton v. Manson, 463 ... Page 914 ... F.Supp. 1252, 1254 (D.Conn.1979); State v. Shaw, --- Conn. ---, ---, 441 A.2d 561 (43 Conn.L.J., No. 7, pp. 37, 40) (1981); State v. Bitting, 162 Conn. 1, 8-9, 291 A.2d 240 (1971); State v. Marquez, 160 Conn. 47, 52-53, 273 A.2d 689 (1970). The trial court is permitted wide discretion in fixing the limits of cross-examination, particularly on ... ...
-
State v. Nardini
... ... Shaw, --- Conn. ---, ---, 441 A.2d 561 (43 Conn.L.J., No. 7, pp. 37, 40) (1981); narcotics violations; State v. Hall, 165 Conn. 599, 606, 345 A.2d 17 (1973); carrying a pistol [187 Conn. 525] without a permit, one of the offenses involved here; State v. Miller, 186 Conn. 654, 443 A.2d 906 (1982); ... ...
-
State v. Vessichio
... ... Shaw, 185 Conn. 372, 386, 441 A.2d 561 (1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1155, 102 S.Ct. 1027, 71 L.Ed.2d 312 (1982), quoting United States v. Miranda, 526 F.2d 1319, 1324 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 821, 97 S.Ct. 69, 50 L.Ed.2d 82 (1976). "Since access to the statements of witnesses for the ... ...
-
§ 18.02 Use of Deadly Force: Clarification of the General Principles
...increased peril and strife. . . . [O]ne should not be driven from the inviolate place of refuge that is the home.").[60] State v. Shaw, 441 A.2d 561, 566 (Conn. 1981). [61] Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044, 1052 (Fla. 1999).[62] State v. Gartland, 694 A.2d 564, 570-71 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1997) (......
-
§ 18.02 USE OF DEADLY FORCE: CLARIFICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES
...increased peril and strife . . . . [O]ne should not be driven from the inviolate place of refuge that is the home.").[60] . State v. Shaw, 441 A.2d 561, 566 (Conn. 1981).[61] . Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044, 1052 (Fla. 1999).[62] . State v. Gartland, 694 A.2d 564, 570-71 (N.J. 1997) (cal......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...272 (Ohio 1992), 504 Shane, State v., 883 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. 2016), 163 Shaw v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 462 (2016), 531 Shaw, State v., 441 A.2d 561 (Conn. 1981), 219 Shaw, United States v., 670 F.3d 360 (1st Cir. 2012), 157, 158 Sheckles v. State, 501 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. 1986), 386 Sheffield......