self-defense claim in Connecticut

2003Our Supreme Court; *519 State v. Quintana, 209 Conn. 34, 46-48 , 547 A.2d 534 (1988); and this court; State v. Scarpiello, 40 Conn. App. 189, 211-12 , 670 A.2d 856 , cert. denied, 236 Conn. 921 , 674 A.2d 1327 (1996); have held that an incomplete jury instruction with regard to self-defense is not constitutionally infirm where the principal factual issue is not dependent on one aspect of the defendant’s self-defense claim.

2003Our Supreme Court; *519 State v. Quintana, 209 Conn. 34, 46-48 , 547 A.2d 534 (1988); and this court; State v. Scarpiello, 40 Conn. App. 189, 211-12 , 670 A.2d 856 , cert. denied, 236 Conn. 921 , 674 A.2d 1327 (1996); have held that an incomplete jury instruction with regard to self-defense is not constitutionally infirm where the principal factual issue is not dependent on one aspect of the defendant’s self-defense claim.

2010As these principles indicate, therefore, only the state has a burden of persuasion regarding a self-defense claim: it must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pauling, 102 Conn. App. 556 , *167 571, 925 A.2d 1200 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 924 , 933 A.2d 727 (2007). “[T]he 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. ...

2009As these principles indicate, therefore, only the state has a burden of persuasion regarding a self-defense claim: it must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 924 , 933 A.2d 727 (2007).

2010As these principles indicate, therefore, only the state has a burden of persuasion regarding a self-defense claim: it must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pauling, 102 Conn. App. 556 , *167 571, 925 A.2d 1200 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 924 , 933 A.2d 727 (2007). “[T]he 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. ...

2009As these principles indicate, therefore, only the state has a burden of persuasion regarding a self-defense claim: it must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 924 , 933 A.2d 727 (2007).

2014As these princi- ples indicate, therefore, only the state has a burden of persuasion regarding a self-defense claim: it must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Cita- tions omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Clark, 264 Conn. 723 , 730–31, 826 A.2d 128 (2003).

2014As these princi- ples indicate, therefore, only the state has a burden of persuasion regarding a self-defense claim: it must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Cita- tions omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Clark, 264 Conn. 723 , 730–31, 826 A.2d 128 (2003).

2003Our Supreme Court; *519 State v. Quintana, 209 Conn. 34, 46-48 , 547 A.2d 534 (1988); and this court; State v. Scarpiello, 40 Conn. App. 189, 211-12 , 670 A.2d 856 , cert. denied, 236 Conn. 921 , 674 A.2d 1327 (1996); have held that an incomplete jury instruction with regard to self-defense is not constitutionally infirm where the principal factual issue is not dependent on one aspect of the defendant’s self-defense claim.

2003Our Supreme Court; *519 State v. Quintana, 209 Conn. 34, 46-48 , 547 A.2d 534 (1988); and this court; State v. Scarpiello, 40 Conn. App. 189, 211-12 , 670 A.2d 856 , cert. denied, 236 Conn. 921 , 674 A.2d 1327 (1996); have held that an incomplete jury instruction with regard to self-defense is not constitutionally infirm where the principal factual issue is not dependent on one aspect of the defendant’s self-defense claim.

1998This statutory emphasis upon the defendant further demonstrates the function of the jury in their evaluation of the self-defense claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Anderson, 227 Conn. 518, 533 , 631 A.2d 1149 (1993).

1998This statutory emphasis upon the defendant further demonstrates the function of the jury in their evaluation of the self-defense claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Anderson, 227 Conn. 518, 533 , 631 A.2d 1149 (1993).

2022The Appellate Court read this court’s precedents in State v. Bailey, 209 Conn. 322 , 551 A.2d 1206 (1988), and State v. Diggs, 219 Conn. 295 , 592 A.2d 949 (1991), to mean that, although a jury must reject a self-defense claim unanimously before it may find a defendant guilty, there is generally no requirement that jurors agree on which specific factor of Connecticut’s four factor test1 for self-defense the state has disproven.

2022The Appellate Court read this court’s precedents in State v. Bailey, 209 Conn. 322 , 551 A.2d 1206 (1988), and State v. Diggs, 219 Conn. 295 , 592 A.2d 949 (1991), to mean that, although a jury must reject a self-defense claim unanimously before it may find a defendant guilty, there is generally no requirement that jurors agree on which specific factor of Connecticut’s four factor test1 for self-defense the state has disproven.

2010As these principles indicate, therefore, only the state has a burden of persuasion regarding a self-defense claim: it must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pauling, 102 Conn. App. 556 , *167 571, 925 A.2d 1200 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 924 , 933 A.2d 727 (2007). “[T]he 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. ...

2010As these principles indicate, therefore, only the state has a burden of persuasion regarding a self-defense claim: it must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pauling, 102 Conn. App. 556 , *167 571, 925 A.2d 1200 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 924 , 933 A.2d 727 (2007). “[T]he 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. ...

2007Because he failed to preserve this claim at trial by either filing a written request to charge on self-defense or taking an exception to the self-defense instruction given by the court, 6 the defendant sought review of his claim pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989).

2007Because he failed to preserve this claim at trial by either filing a written request to charge on self-defense or taking an exception to the self-defense instruction given by the court, 6 the defendant sought review of his claim pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989).

2025We then consider whether a defendant’s exercise of the right of self-defense, when the defendant used deadly force in the proper exercise of that right, applies to a charge of reckless manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm of an unintended victim, following our decision in State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579 , 584–86, 569 A.2d 534 (1990).6 ‘‘A justification defense represents a legal acknowledg- ment that the harm caused by otherwise criminal con- 5 The defendant and other jurisdictions have referred to the defense as ‘‘trans- ferred intent self-defense’’ or ‘‘transferred innocent intent’’

2025We then consider whether a defendant’s exercise of the right of self-defense, when the defendant used deadly force in the proper exercise of that right, applies to a charge of reckless manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm of an unintended victim, following our decision in State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579 , 584–86, 569 A.2d 534 (1990).6 ‘‘A justification defense represents a legal acknowledg- ment that the harm caused by otherwise criminal con- 5 The defendant and other jurisdictions have referred to the defense as ‘‘trans- ferred intent self-defense’’ or ‘‘transferred innocent intent’’

2022For example, in State v. Lewis, 220 Conn. 602 , 617–20, 600 A.2d 1330 (1991), the defendant shot and killed the victim and posited a defense of self-defense.

2022For example, in State v. Lewis, 220 Conn. 602 , 617–20, 600 A.2d 1330 (1991), the defendant shot and killed the victim and posited a defense of self-defense.

2021In State v. Carter, 232 Conn. 537, 538 , 656 A.2d 657 (1995), the defendant appealed from the trial court’s failure to give a self-defense instruction to the jury.

2021In State v. Carter, 232 Conn. 537, 538 , 656 A.2d 657 (1995), the defendant appealed from the trial court’s failure to give a self-defense instruction to the jury.

2010As our Supreme Court stated in State v. Lemoine, 256 Conn. 193 , 770 A.2d 491 (2001), “had the state’s attack on the defendant’s self-defense claim been based on the defendant’s failure to retreat, a complete jury instruction on the duty to retreat would have been necessary.” Id., 200 .

2010As our Supreme Court stated in State v. Lemoine, 256 Conn. 193 , 770 A.2d 491 (2001), “had the state’s attack on the defendant’s self-defense claim been based on the defendant’s failure to retreat, a complete jury instruction on the duty to retreat would have been necessary.” Id., 200 .

2009This statutory emphasis upon the defendant further demonstrates the function of the jury in their evaluation of the self-defense claim.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) We acknowledge that the original development of this proposition in Quintana may well have been misleading to the bench and bar, as this court quoted State v. Corchado, 188 Conn. 653, 663 , 453 A.2d 427 (1982), for the general proposition of what the defendant “reasonably believes under the circumstances,” and then added the bracketed language “[as to whether a safe retreat was available and whether he knew of it].” (Internal quotati

2009This statutory emphasis upon the defendant further demonstrates the function of the jury in their evaluation of the self-defense claim.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) We acknowledge that the original development of this proposition in Quintana may well have been misleading to the bench and bar, as this court quoted State v. Corchado, 188 Conn. 653, 663 , 453 A.2d 427 (1982), for the general proposition of what the defendant “reasonably believes under the circumstances,” and then added the bracketed language “[as to whether a safe retreat was available and whether he knew of it].” (Internal quotati

2004In support of its supplemental request to charge the jury that the defense of self-defense did not apply to § 29-38, the state relied on dicta in State v. Holloway, 11 Conn. App. 665, 671 , 528 A.2d 1176 (1987), that a self-defense instruction is not appropriate when the defendant has been charged with having a dangerous weapon in violation of § 53-206.

2004In support of its supplemental request to charge the jury that the defense of self-defense did not apply to § 29-38, the state relied on dicta in State v. Holloway, 11 Conn. App. 665, 671 , 528 A.2d 1176 (1987), that a self-defense instruction is not appropriate when the defendant has been charged with having a dangerous weapon in violation of § 53-206.

1988In support of this claim, the state interprets the cases of State v. Rosado, 178 Conn. 704, 707-708 , 425 A.2d 108 (1979), and State v. Cassino, 188 Conn. 237, 242 , 449 A.2d 154 (1982), to mean that the defendant must admit the crime in order to be entitled to a self-defense charge.

1983Although we attached significance to the fact that the defendant did not admit committing the crime charged; id., 243 ; our decision was based upon the conclusion that the defendant had failed to introduce sufficient evidence to warrant a self-defense instruction.

1988In support of this claim, the state interprets the cases of State v. Rosado, 178 Conn. 704, 707-708 , 425 A.2d 108 (1979), and State v. Cassino, 188 Conn. 237, 242 , 449 A.2d 154 (1982), to mean that the defendant must admit the crime in order to be entitled to a self-defense charge.

1988In support of this claim, the state interprets the cases of State v. Rosado, 178 Conn. 704, 707-708 , 425 A.2d 108 (1979), and State v. Cassino, 188 Conn. 237, 242 , 449 A.2d 154 (1982), to mean that the defendant must admit the crime in order to be entitled to a self-defense charge.

2026Relying on its reasoning in State v. Mekoshvili ( 344 Conn. 673 ), in which the court held that there is generally no constitutional requirement that a jury be unanimous as to which of the specific components of a defendant’s self-defense claim the state has disproven in order for the state to overcome that self-defense claim, this court held in the present case that, in general, so long as the jurors unanimously agree that the state has established a statu- tory disqualification to the assertion of a claim of self-defense, the federal constitution does not require them to be unanimous as to t

2026State v. Matheney In State v. Mekoshvili, supra, 344 Conn. 673 , this court explained that there is generally no constitutional requirement that the jury be unanimous as to which of the specific components of a defendant’s self-defense claim the state has disproven in order for the state to overcome a claim of self-defense.

2026February 17, 2026 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 41 354 Conn. 212 FEBRUARY, 2026 219 State v. Matheney In State v. Mekoshvili, supra, 344 Conn. 673 , this court explained that there is generally no constitutional requirement that the jury be unanimous as to which of the specific components of a defendant’s self-defense claim the state has disproven in order for the state to overcome a claim of self-defense.

2026Page 42 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL February 17, 2026 220 FEBRUARY, 2026 354 Conn. 212 State v. Matheney instructed the jury on the law of self-defense, includ- ing the three raised statutory disqualifications, largely in accordance with our state’s model jury charge.

2025Cf. State v. Espinal, 208 Conn. App. 369 , 418–20, 264 A.3d 1003 , cert. denied, 340 Conn. 916 , 266 A.3d 886 (2021).

2025In State v. Jones, 39 Conn. App. 563 , 665 A.2d 910 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 931 , 667 A.2d 800 (1995), the defendant was convicted of the intent crime of assault in the first degree, and the jury was given a self-defense instruction despite the fact that the victim was not the alleged aggressor.

2025In State v. Jones, 39 Conn. App. 563 , 665 A.2d 910 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 931 , 667 A.2d 800 (1995), the defendant was convicted of the intent crime of assault in the first degree, and the jury was given a self-defense instruction despite the fact that the victim was not the alleged aggressor.

2025In State v. Jones, 39 Conn. App. 563 , 665 A.2d 910 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 931 , 667 A.2d 800 (1995), the defendant was convicted of the intent crime of assault in the first degree, and the jury was given a self-defense instruction despite the fact that the victim was not the alleged aggressor.