State v. Crafter

198 Conn.App. 732

233 A.3d 1227

STATE of Connecticut

v.Laura C. CRAFTER

AC 41302

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued February 11, 2020

Officially released July 7, 2020

James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Rocco A. Chiarenza, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, state's attorney, and Pamela J. Esposito, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Elgo, Moll and Bishop, Js.

MOLL, J.

The defendant, Laura C. Crafter, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of assault in the first degree by means of a dangerous instrument in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1).¹ On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court erred in denying her motion for a judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to establish that she intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim, (2) the state failed to disprove the defendant's defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) the court committed plain error by failing to instruct, sua sponte, the jury on defense of others within its self-defense instruction.² We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On the basis of the evidence adduced at trial, the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In November, 2015, Michael Reed was dating the defendant, and his brother, Demetrius Reed, was dating the victim, Jasmine Turkvan.³ Prior to the events giving rise to this case, Demetrius, Michael, their younger brother, Christian Reed (Christian), and their mother lived together. Their mother was evicted, and the family's living arrangements changed. Demetrius went to live with the victim, and Michael, Christian, and their mother moved in with the defendant at a housing complex in Bridgeport. Considerable animosity existed between Michael and Demetrius, who would, on occasion, engage in fistfights to settle their personal disputes.

On or about November 19, 2015, Demetrius arrived at the defendant's apartment to obtain marijuana from his mother. Upon opening the door, Demetrius overheard the defendant yelling. Demetrius and the defendant did not get along, nor did they respect one another. After obtaining the marijuana, Demetrius exited the apartment and headed for the elevator. Shortly thereafter, the defendant opened the apartment door and shouted a racial epithet at Demetrius, who responded by remarking on the defendant's lack of income. The defendant proceeded into the hallway, and, as Demetrius entered the elevator, she spat at him. Demetrius emerged from the elevator and proceeded to punch the defendant in the face with sufficient force to knock her to the ground. He then left the building.

On the morning of the next day, November 20, 2015, Demetrius dropped Christian and his niece off at school.⁴ Around 3:15 p.m., Demetrius and the victim returned to the school to pick them up. Because Demetrius did not have an automobile of his own, he went with the victim in her vehicle. Unbeknownst to Demetrius, Michael was already at the school picking up his daughter.⁵ The defendant was accompanying Michael at that time. As Michael and the defendant departed the school, Demetrius and the victim followed; Demetrius intended to engage in a fistfight with Michael to "get what [he] had off [his] chest." Demetrius and the victim followed Michael and the defendant to the house of the defendant's mother, located at 95 Cambridge Street in Stratford. At Michael's instruction, the defendant brought Michael's daughter inside. Demetrius exited the vehicle with the intention of fighting Michael. Michael told Demetrius that they should not engage in the fight in front of the house, and the two agreed to drive around the block to fight in a more secluded area. Around the corner from the house, the two men exited their respective vehicles and engaged in a violent fistfight, which resulted in Demetrius biting through Michael's eyelid to avoid getting "choked out" and Michael sustaining a dislocated shoulder and suffering an asthma attack.

While the melee between the brothers was unfolding, the victim, who remained in the passenger seat of her vehicle that Demetrius had driven around the block, observed the defendant approaching the scene with "something shiny in her hand," which turned out to be a ten inch "Michael Myers" style kitchen knife. According to the victim, she exited the vehicle and pleaded with the defendant to leave the brothers alone, as there was nothing that they could do to stop the fight. She did not know from where the defendant had obtained the knife. The defendant responded by telling the victim to "shut the fuck up" and poking the victim in the forehead with the knife. Fearing that the defendant was going to severely injure Demetrius, the victim panicked and attempted to grab the knife from the defendant. The victim and the defendant, contemporaneously with the fight between the brothers, then engaged in a fight over the knife. As the two women fought for control of the knife, the defendant was waving the knife around, the two were pulling each other's hair, and the victim began to lose feeling in her hand.

Both fights abruptly came to a halt. The victim was unaware that she had sustained a cut on her face until Demetrius told her so. Upon noticing the extent of the victim's injuries, Demetrius proceeded to drive the victim to St. Vincent's Medical Center in Bridgeport (St. Vincent's). Demetrius realized en route that the victim had sustained a wound to her back as well. At St. Vincent's, it was determined that the victim had sustained lacerations to the left side of her face, to her right thumb, and to the left side of her back, resulting in scarring and disfigurement. The injury to the face required twenty stitches, the injury to thumb required twelve stitches, and the back injury required nine sutures to close. She was released from St. Vincent's on the same day.

Meanwhile, Officer Brian McCarthy of the Stratford Police Department responded to a disturbance in the vicinity of 95 Cambridge Street in Stratford and met with the defendant and Michael. The defendant reported that she had been in a fight with another female and indicated to him that no weapons were used in the fight.⁶ Officer McCarthy learned that the victim had sustained knife injuries and proceeded to St. Vincent's to question the victim and Demetrius. He took photographs of the victim's injuries. The knife used by the defendant in the brawl with the victim was never recovered.

The defendant was arrested and was charged by way of a substitute information with one count of assault in the first degree with a dangerous instrument and one count of assault in the first degree with extreme indifference to human life in violation of §§ 53a-59 (a) (1) and 53a-59 (a) (3), respectively.⁷ A jury convicted the defendant of assault in the first degree in violation of § 53a-59 (a) (1). In accordance with the verdict, the trial court sentenced the defendant to ten years of incarceration, execution suspended after five years, followed by five years of probation. This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth where necessary.

I

The defendant's first claim is that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended to cause serious physical injury to the victim. For the reasons that follow, we are unpersuaded.

The standard by which we review the defendant's claim is well established. "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. ...

"While the jury must find every element proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense, each of the basic and inferred facts underlying those conclusions need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. ... If it is reasonable and logical for the jury to conclude that a basic fact or an inferred fact is true, the jury is permitted to consider the fact proven and may consider it in combination with other proven facts in determining whether the cumulative effect of all the evidence proves the defendant guilty of all the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. ...

"On appeal, 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." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Allan , 311 Conn. 1, 25, 83 A.3d 326 (2014).

"A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when ... [w]ith intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person ... by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument .... A [d]angerous instrument is defined as any instrument, article or substance which, under the circumstances in which it is used or attempted or threatened to be used, is capable of causing death or serious physical injury .... Serious physical injury is defined as physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ .... Assault in the first degree is a specific intent crime. It requires that the criminal actor possess the specific intent to cause serious physical injury to another person." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hudson , 180 Conn....