State v. Brown

198 Conn.App. 630

233 A.3d 1258

STATE of Connecticut

v.Donald BROWN

AC 41745

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 3, 2020

Officially released June 30, 2020

Robert L. O'Brien, assigned counsel, with whom, on the brief, was William A. Adsit, North Haven, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

Nancy L. Chupak, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail Hardy, state's attorney, and Robin Krawczyk, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Prescott, Moll and Harper, Js.

HARPER, J.

The defendant, Donald Brown, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5).¹ On appeal, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt his asserted justification of self-defense and, accordingly, that he is entitled to a judgment of acquittal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In 2005, the defendant purchased real property located at 131 Hebron Street in Hartford (property), and rented the property to his aunt, who died in 2014. Following her death, the defendant continued using the property as a rental property and, as such, rented the property to his cousin's daughter, Qeyonna Reid (Qeyonna), and her husband, the complaining witness, Lascelles Reid (Reid). The defendant had given Qeyonna and Reid permission to renovate the property, with the understanding that they were to move into the property once the renovations were completed.

On April 24, 2015, the defendant drove his vehicle to the property. The defendant backed his vehicle into the driveway, exited the vehicle, entered the property, and proceeded to walk around the inside, observing the remodeling work that Reid had begun. The defendant was aware of the state of the renovations prior to his visit. The defendant had agreed to allow the couple only to paint the interior of the property and, consequently, felt Reid had rendered the property "unlivable" by gutting its interior. Accordingly, the defendant decided that he would express his discontent with Reid in private and, subsequently, invited Reid outside. The men entered the defendant's vehicle, which was in the driveway. Reid sat in the passenger seat, and the defendant sat in the driver's seat. The defendant began explaining to Reid that he was upset with the renovation work being done. While speaking to Reid, the defendant gestured with his hand in a pointing fashion close to Reid's face. Reid responded by swatting the defendant's finger away and blocking his subsequent attempts to gesture in such a way. As a result, a struggle ensued, with both men pushing and shoving each other inside the vehicle. During the encounter, the defendant was pinned against the A-frame of the car door as both men were "grabb[ing] each other's clothing." When the struggle ended, the defendant exited the vehicle and moved to the rear side of the vehicle. A few seconds later, Reid exited the passenger side of the vehicle and turned to find that the defendant—now also on the passenger side—was holding a gun pointed in his direction.² Reid asked the defendant, "what now, you're going to shoot me?" to which the defendant replied, "I'll eff you up L.R. I'll kill you." The defendant then shot Reid one time in the abdomen. Reid fell to the ground and asked the defendant to call for help. The defendant approached a nearby stranger walking along the road and borrowed his cell phone to call 911.

After arriving at the property, the police secured the scene and observed, among other things, the defendant standing against the curb in the street. The defendant directed the responding officers to his firearm, which he had laid in the grass, and told them that he had shot Reid. The police then secured the firearm. The defendant told the police that he was unharmed, and they did not observe any injuries to him beyond a limp he had acquired from a prior work related injury.

The first responders also observed Reid lying on the ground and began treating him immediately before transporting him to Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center for surgery. Reid suffered permanent injuries to his right leg.

Later, when the lead investigator, Detective Dennis DeMatteo, arrived at the scene, he spoke briefly with the responding officers and with the defendant, who had been placed in the back of a patrol cruiser. The defendant agreed to be transported to the Hartford police station to be interviewed. DeMatteo interviewed the defendant, who was not under arrest, for approximately two hours and forty-five minutes, during which time the defendant made, reviewed, and signed his formal statement describing the events that had occurred.

During his interview, the defendant told DeMatteo that once the struggle in the vehicle had ended, he exited the vehicle and began walking toward the front of the vehicle, at which time Reid also exited the vehicle. The defendant then began to retreat toward the rear of the vehicle. The defendant told DeMatteo that, during his retreat, he pulled out his gun out of fear "due to his [work related] injuries and the size of ... Reid." He then moved to the passenger side of the vehicle and shot him. The defendant did not report to the police that he had suffered any injuries during the altercation and declined medical treatment at that time. DeMatteo did not witness any injuries to the defendant during the interview. After concluding the interview, the defendant allowed the police to transport him back to the property and to take photographs of his vehicle, which, at that time, still had the key in its ignition.

DeMatteo interviewed Reid on April 27, and again on April 29, 2015. After evaluating both versions of events that he had received from Reid and the defendant, and after viewing the physical evidence at the scene, DeMatteo applied for an arrest warrant and, subsequently, arrested the defendant on May 14, 2015.

On May 14, 2015, the defendant was charged by long form information with one count of assault in the first degree pursuant to § 53a-59 (a) (5) and one count of assault in the first degree pursuant to § 53a-59 (a) (3). On November 8, 2017, after a trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of assault in the first degree pursuant to § 53a-59 (a) (5). Subsequently, the defendant filed posttrial motions for a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. These motions were denied by the court, D'Addabbo, J. , on January 5 and 9, 2018, respectively. The defendant was thereafter sentenced to fourteen years of imprisonment, execution suspended after seven years, followed by five years of probation. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence at trial to satisfy the state's burden to disprove his claim of self-defense as a justification for his use of deadly force as set forth in General Statutes § 53a-19 (a). Among other things, § 53a-19 (a) looks to the reasonableness of the fear of the person claiming self-defense and the necessity of the use of deadly force.³ In response, the state argues that it disproved the defendant's claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.⁴ We agree with the state that the evidence was sufficient to disprove the defendant's claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

We first set forth our standard of review. "On appeal, the standard for reviewing sufficiency claims in conjunction with a justification offered by the defense is the same standard used when examining claims of insufficiency of the evidence. ... In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we apply a two part test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the [jury] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt .... This court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the jury if there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. ... Moreover, we do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the jury's verdict of guilty." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Revels , 313 Conn. 762, 778, 99 A.3d 1130 (2014), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 1451, 191 L. Ed. 2d 404 (2015).

"The rules governing the respective burdens borne by the defendant and the state on the justification of self-defense are grounded in the fact that [u]nder our Penal Code, self-defense, as defined in ... § 53a-19 (a) ... is a defense, rather than an affirmative defense. See General Statutes § 53a-16. Whereas an affirmative defense requires the defendant to establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence, a properly raised defense places the burden on the state to disprove the defendant's claim beyond a reasonable doubt. See General Statutes § 53a-12. Consequently, a defendant has no burden of persuasion for a claim of self-defense; he has only a burden of production. That is, he merely is required to introduce sufficient evidence to warrant presenting his claim of self-defense to the jury .... Once the defendant has done so, it becomes the state's burden to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt." (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alicea , 191 Conn. App. 421, 446–47, 215 A.3d 184, cert. granted on other grounds, 333 Conn. 937, 219 A.3d 373 (2019).

"Whether the defense of the justified use of force, properly raised at trial, has been disproved by the state is a question of fact for the jury, to be determined from...