DOCKET NO. CR16-335957 (42540) SUPERIOR COURT

STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW
LONDON
V.
DANTE A. HUGHES July 23, 2018
JURY CHARGE

Court's Duty to Instruct

Ladies and gentlemen, you have heard the evidence presented in this
case and the arguments of counsel. It is now my duty to instruct you as to the
law that you are to apply in this case. During these instructions, I will, for
the most part, be reading from prepared material. I do this so that I do not
inadvertently give you an incorrect instruction. So if I lose contact with
you from time to time, please bear with me.

Function of Court and Jury

It is exclusively the function of the court to state the rules of law that govern
the case, with instructions as to how you are to apply them. It is your
obligation to accept the law as I state it. You must follow all of my
instructions and not single out some and ignore others; they are all equally
important.

You are the sole judges of the facts. It is your duty to find the facts. You are
to recollect and weigh the evidence and form your own conclusions as to
what the ultimate facts are. You may not go outside the evidence introduced
in court to ?nd the facts. This means that you may not resort to guesswork,
conjecture or suspicion, and you must not be in?uenced by any personal likes
or dislikes, opinions, prejudices or sympathy.

You should not be in?uenced by my actions during the trial in ruling on
motions or objections by counsel, or in comments to counsel, or in questions
to witnesses, or in setting forth the law in these instructions. You are not to
take my actions as any indication of my opinion as to how you should
determine the issues of fact.

During the trial, the attorneys on both sides objected when the other side
offered testimony or evidence which the lawyer believed was not admissible.
It is the responsibility of counsel to object to evidence which he or she
believes" is inadmissible. For this reason, you should not be prejudiced in any
way against a lawyer who makes an objection. You were asked to retire to
the jury room on occasion so that a disputed point of law could be resolved
without the danger of your hearing what might be inadmissible evidence.
Please do not resent that procedure or hold it against either side.

Now, should I refer to any evidence, it is only for the purpose of clari?cation
of some point of law or a point of illustration or to refresh your recollection
as to the general nature of the testimony. I do not intend to emphasize any
evidence I mention or limit your consideration to it. If I do not mention
certain evidence, you will use the evidence from your recollection. If my
recollection of the evidence does not comport with your recollection, then it
is your recollection which must prevail because you are the exclusive trier of
the facts.

The defendant justly relies upon you to consider carefully his claims, to
consider carefully all of the evidence and to ?nd him not guilty if the facts
and the law require such a verdict. The defendant rightfully expects fair and
just treatment at your hands.

At the same time, the state of Connecticut and its people look to you to
render a verdict of guilty if the facts and law require such a verdict.

The law prohibits the state's attorneys or defense counsel from giving
personal opinions as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. It is not

2

their assessment of the credibility of witnesses that matters, only yours.

Presumption of Innocence

In this case, as in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant is presumed to be
innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This
presumption of innocence was with this defendant when he was ?rst
presented for trial in this case. It continues with him throughout this trial,
unless and until such time as all evidence produced here in the orderly
conduct of the case, considered in the light of these instructions of law, and
deliberated upon by you in the jury room, satis?es you beyond a reasonable
doubt that he is guilty.

If and when the presumption of innocence has been overcome by evidence
proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime
charged, then it is the sworn duty of the jury to enforce the law and to render
a guilty verdict.

Burden of Proof

The state has the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty of the crime
with which he is charged. The defendant does not have to prove his
innocence. This means that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
each and every element necessary to constitute the crime charged.

Whether the burden of proof resting upon the state is sustained depends not
on the number of witnesses, nor on the quantity of the testimony, but on the
nature and quality of the testimony. Please bear in mind that one witness's
testimony is suf?cient to convict if it establishes all the elements of a crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable Doubt

The meaning of reasonable doubt can be arrived at by emphasizing the word
reasonable. It is not a surmise, a guess or mere conjecture. It is not a doubt
raised by anyone simply for the sake of raising a doubt. It is such a doubt as,
in serious affairs that concern you, you would heed; that is, such a doubt as
would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate to act upon it in matters

3

of importance. It is not hesitation springing from any feelings of pity or
sympathy for the accused or any other person who might be affected by your
decision. It is, in other words, a real doubt, an honest doubt, a doubt that has
its foundation in the evidence or lack of evidence. It is doubt that is honestly
entertained and is reasonable in light of the evidence after a fair comparison
and careful examination of the entire evidence.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt; the
law does not require absolute certainty on the part of the jury before it returns
a verdict of guilty. The law requires that, after hearing all the evidence, if
there is something in the evidence or lack of evidence that leaves in your
minds, as reasonable men and women, a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of
the accused, then the accused must be given the bene?t of that doubt and
acquitted. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that precludes every
reasonable hypothesis except guilt and is inconsistent with any other rational
conclusion.

EVIDENCE IN GENERAL

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

The evidence from which you are to decide what the facts are consists of: 1)
the sworn testimony of witnesses both on direct and cross examination,
regardless of who called the witness; and 2) the exhibits that have been
admitted into evidence.

In reaching your verdict, you should consider all the testimony and exhibits
admitted into evidence. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not
consider them in deciding what the facts are. These include:

0 Arguments and statements by lawyers. The lawyers are not witnesses.
What they have said in their closing arguments is intended to help you
interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember
them differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your memory of them
controls. It is not proper for the attorneys to express their opinions on the
ultimate issues in the case or to appeal to your emotions.

0 Testimony that has been excluded or stricken is also not evidence. I
did have occasion to exclude certain testimony and you must follow my
instruction to disregard that testimony.

0 The document called the Substitute Information that you will have with
you at the time of deliberation is also not evidence. The information is
merely the formal manner of accusing a person of a crime in order to bring
him to trial. You must not consider the information as any evidence of the
guilt of the defendant, or draw any inference of guilt because he has been
charged with a crime. You will note that the information contains within it
the alleged date and location of the offense. The state does not have to prove
the exact time, date or location of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, the state must prove each element of the offense, including
identi?cation of the defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are, generally speaking, two kinds of evidence, direct and
circumstantial. Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what that
witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect
evidence, that is, evidence from which you could find that another fact exists,
even though it has not been proved directly. There is no legal distinction
between direct and circumstantial evidence as far as probative value; the law
permits you to give equal weight to bothdecide how
much weight to give to any particular evidence.

Circumstantial evidence of an event is the testimony of witnesses as to the
existence of certain facts or evidence or the happening of other events from
which you may logically conclude that the event in question did happen. By
way of example, let us assume that it is a December night and you're
preparing to retire for the evening. You look out the window and you see it
is snowing. You wake up the next morning, come to court, and testify that
the night before it was snowing in the area of your house. That is direct
evidence of the fact that it snowed the night before. You saw it and you came
into court and testified to that fact.

Now assume that it is another December night, the weather is clear, there is

5

no snow on the ground, and you retire for the evening. You wake up the next
morning, you look out the window and you see snow on the ground and
footprints across your lawn. You come into court and you testify to those
facts. The evidence that the night before there was no snow on the ground
and the next morning there was snow on the ground and footprints across
your lawn is direct evidence. That direct evidence, however, is
circumstantial evidence of the fact that some time during the night it snowed
and that some time thereafter someone walked across your lawn.

The only practical difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is
that when you have direct evidence of some fact, the main thing you have to
do is determine the believability of the direct testimony given, the credibility
of the witness. With circumstantial evidence, you must ?rst determine the
credibility of the witness or witnesses and decide whether the facts testi?ed
to did exist. Then you must decide whether the happenings of those events or
the existence of those facts leads logically to the conclusion that other events
occurred or other facts exist, and ultimately, whether the crime alleged was
committed by the accused.

There is no reason to be prejudiced against evidence simply because it
is circumstantial evidence. You make decisions on the basis of circumstantial
evidence in the everyday affairs of life. There is no reason why decisions
based on circumstantial evidence should not be made in the courtroom. In
fact, proof by circumstantial evidence may be as conclusive as would be the
testimony of witnesses speaking on the basis of their own observation.
Circumstantial evidence, therefore, is offered to prove a certain fact from
which you are asked to infer the existence of another fact or set of facts.
Before you decide that a fact has been proved by circumstantial evidence,
you must consider all of the evidence in light of reason, experience and
common sense.

redibil it
In deciding what the facts are, you must consider all the evidence. In doing
this, you must decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to

6

believe. You may believe all, none or any part of any witness's testimony. In
making that decision, you may take into account a number of factors
including the following: 1) was the witness able to see, or hear, or know the
things about which that witness testified?; 2) how well was the witness able
to recall and describe those things?; 3) what was the witness's manner while
testifying?; 4) did the witness have an interest in the outcome of this case or
any bias or prejudice concerning any party or any matter involved in the
case?; 5) how reasonable was the witness's testimony considered in light of
all the evidence in the case?; and 6) was the witness's testimony contradicted
by what that witness has said or done at another time, or by the testimony of
other witnesses, or by other evidence?

If you think that a witness has deliberately testified falsely in some respect,
you should carefully consider whether you should rely upon any of that
witness's testimony.

In deciding whether or not to believe a witness, keep in mind that people
sometimes forget things. You need to consider, therefore, whether a
contradiction is an innocent lapse of memory or an intentional falsehood, and
that may depend on whether the contradiction has to do with an important
fact or with only a small detail. These are some of the factors you may
consider in deciding whether to believe testimony.

The weight of the evidence presented by each side does not depend on the
number of witnesses testifying on one side or the other. You must consider
all the evidence in the case, and you may decide that the testimony of a
smaller number of witnesses on one side has greater weight than that of a
larger number on the other side. It is the quality of the evidence, not the
quantity of the evidence, that you must consider.

Expert Testimony

I am going to talk for a moment about expert testimony. In this case,
Dr. Frank Evangelista, from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, James
Wines of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Fung Cho Kwok, Laura
Grestini, Greg Kettinger, Tara Burnette, Jill Therriault and Steven Bryant

7

from the State of Connecticut Forensic Science Laboratory each took the
stand and stated to you not merely what they knew as facts, but gave certain
opinions as an expert. These witnesses have taken the stand, given their
quali?cations and testified as expert witnesses. A person is quali?ed to
testify as an expert if he or she has special knowledge, skill, experience,
training or education suf?cient to qualify him or her as an expert on the
subject to which the testimony relates. An expert is permitted not only to
testify to facts that he or she personally observed but also to state an opinion
about certain circumstances. This is allowed because an expert, from
experience, research and study, generally has a particular knowledge of the
subject of the inquiry and is more capable than a lay person of drawing
conclusions from facts and basing an opinion upon them.

Allowing someone to give expert testimony is in no way an endorsement by
the court of the testimony or the credentials of the witness.

Such testimony is presented to you to assist you in your deliberations. No
such testimony is binding upon you, and you may disregard the testimony
either in whole or in part. It is for you to consider the testimony with the
other circumstances in the case, and, using your best judgment, determine
whether you will give any weight to it, and, if so, what weight you will give
to it. The testimony is entitled to such weight as you ?nd the expert's
quali?cations in his or her ?eld entitle it to receive, and it must be considered
by you, but it is not controlling upon your judgment. You are also to
consider their general credibility in accordance with the instruction on
credibility applicable to all witnesses.

Testimony of Police Of?cials

Police of?cials have testi?ed in this case. You must determine the credibility
of police of?cials in the same way and by the same standards as you would
evaluate the testimony of any other witness. The testimony of a police
of?cial is entitled to no special or exclusive weight merely because it comes
from a police of?cial. You should recall his or her demeanor on the stand
and manner of testifying, and weigh and balance it just as carefully as you
would the testimony of any other witness. You should neither believe nor

8

disbelieve the testimony of a police of?cial just because he or she is a police
of?cial.

Defendant's Testimony

In this case, the defendant testi?ed. An accused person, having testi?ed,
stands before you just like any other witness. He is entitled to the same
considerations and must have his testimony tested and measured by you by
the same factors and standards as you would judge the testimony of any other
witness. You have no right to disregard the defendant?s testimony or to
disbelieve the defendant?s testimony merely because he is accused of a crime.
Consider my earlier instructions on the general subject matter of credibility
and apply them to the defendant?s testimony.

Impeachment Prior Convictions of Witness

In this trial, there was evidence that certain witnesses had been
previously convicted of crimes.

This evidence was admitted for a limited purpose. It is only admissible
on the question of the credibility of the witness, that is, the weight you will
give to the witness?s testimony.

As with each witness, it is your duty to determine whether the witness
is to be believed wholly, or partly, or not at all. You may consider a
witness?s prior convictions in assessing the credibility of the witness. In this
regard, you should give such weight to the criminal convictions as you decide
is fair and reasonable in determining credibility.

Impeachment Prior Consistent or Inconsistent Statements

Evidence has been presented that some witnesses made statements outside of
court that are either consistent or inconsistent with their trial testimony. You
should consider this evidence only as it relates to the credibility of the
witness's testimony, not as substantive evidence. In other words, consider
such evidence as you would any other evidence of consistent or inconsistent
conduct in determining the weight to be given to the testimony of the witness

9

in court.

Impeachment -- Whelan Rule

In evidence as state?s exhibits 112 and 120, are prior statements of Latoya
Knight. To the extent, if at all, you ?nd such statements inconsistent with the
witness?s trial testimony, you may give such inconsistency the weight to
which you feel it is entitled in determining the witnesses? credibility here in
court. You may also use such statements for the truth of their content and
?nd facts from it.

Identi?cation of the Defendant

The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant was the perpetrator of the crime. In this case, the state has
presented evidence regarding the identi?cation of the defendant in
connection with the crime charged. Identi?cation is a question of fact for you
to decide, taking into consideration all the evidence that you have seen and
heard in the course of the trial. Identi?cation may also be established by
circumstantial evidence. In this context, you should consider my previous
charge regarding circumstantial evidence.

Remember, the state has the burden to not only prove every element of the
crime but also the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.
You must be satis?ed beyond a reasonable doubt of the identity of the
defendant as the one who committed the crime, or you must ?nd the
defendant not guilty. If you have a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the
identi?cation, you must ?nd the defendant not guilty.

Motive

The law does not require that the state, in a criminal case, prove a motive,
because it is not an element of the crime. It is not necessary for the state to
prove what reason the defendant may have had for committing the crime
charged.

Because crimes are generally committed for some motive, evidence of a
motive may tend to prove the guilt of a defendant. In the same manner, if

10

there appears no adequate motive on the part of the defendant to commit the
crime, that may tend to raise a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
defendant.

If the existence of a motive can be reasonably inferred, that may tend to
prove the defendant '3 guilt, but such a conclusion is not required. If no
motive can be inferred, it may or may not raise a reasonable doubt as to the
guilt of the defendant. If the absence of a motive does not raise a reasonable
doubt that the defendant is guilty, then the fact that the state has not proved
what the defendant's motive was does not prevent you from returning a
verdict of guilty.

Consciousness of Guilt

In any criminal trial it is permissible for the state to show that conduct or
statements made by a defendant after the time of the alleged offense may
have been in?uenced by the criminal act; that is, the conduct or statements
show a consciousness of guilt. For example, ?ight, when unexplained, may
indicate consciousness of guilt if the facts and the circumstances support it.
A person's inconsistent statements to the police may also tend to show a
consciousness of guilt.

Such statements do not, however, raise a presumption of guilt. If you find
the evidence proved and also find that the statements were in?uenced by the
criminal act and not by any other reason, you may, but are not required to,
infer from this evidence that the defendant was acting from a guilty
conscience.

In this case, the state contends that the defendant?s ?ight to the Canadian
border tends to show consciousness of guilt. The defendant claims that there
was an explanation and a response to the claim of consciousness of guilt in
that he acted out of fear and uncertaintyjudges of the facts to decide whether the defendant's ?ight,
if proved, re?ects a consciousness of guilt and to consider such in your
deliberations in conformity with these instructions.

11

Now I will turn to the speci?c offense charged in this case, that is, Murder.
Additionally, there is also a crime identi?ed as a lesser included offense.
Later in these instructions, the Court will discuss the concept of a lesser
included offense, when and if it is for you to decide.

Count One: Murder in violation ?53a~54a

The defendant is charged in Count One with murder. I will now read the
charge in the Substitute Information: [Read Information]

The statute de?ning this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of murder when, with intent to cause the death
of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third
person.

For you to ?nd the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the
following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(I) that the defendant speci?cally intended to cause the death of another; and
(2) caused the death of Joseph Gingerella.
Element 1 - Intent to cause death

The ?rst element is that the defendant speci?cally intended to cause the
death of another person. There is no particular length of time necessary for
the defendant to have formed the speci?c intent to kill. Intent relates to the
condition of mind of the person who commits the act, his or her purpose in
doing it. The law recognizes two types of intent, general intent and speci?c
intent. General intent is the intent to engage in conduct. Speci?c intent is the
intent to achieve a speci?c result. A person acts "intentionally" with respect
to a result when his conscious objective is to cause such result. What the
defendant intended is a question of fact for you to determine.

12

What a person?s intention was is usually a matter to be determined by
inference. No person is able to testify that he or she looked into another?s
mind and saw therein a certain knowledge or a certain purpose or intention to
do harm to another. Because direct evidence of the defendant?s state of mind
is rarely available, intent is generally proved by circumstantial evidence. The
only way a jury can ordinarily determine what a person?s intention was at any
given time is by determining what the person?s conduct was and what the
circumstances were surrounding that conduct and from that infer what his
intention was.

To draw such an inference is the proper function of a jury, provided of
course that the inference drawn complies with the standards for inferences as
explained in connection with my instruction on circumstantial evidence. The
intent to cause death may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as
the type of weapon used, the manner in which it was used, the type of wound
in?icted and the events leading to and immediately following the death. The
inference is not a necessary one. You are not required to infer a particular
intent from the defendant?s conduct or statements, but it is an inference that
you may draw if you ?nd it is reasonable and logical. I again remind you that
the burden of proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt is on the state. The
state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant speci?cally
intended to cause the death of another person.

Element 2 Caused death

The second element is that the defendant, acting with the intent to cause the
death of another person, caused the death of Joseph Gingerella. It is not
necessary for a conviction of murder that the state prove that the defendant
intended to kill the person whom he did in fact kill. It is sufficient if the state
proves that, acting with the intent to kill a person, he in fact killed a person.

This means that the defendant?s conduct was the proximate cause of Joseph

Gingerella?s death. You must find it proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
Joseph Gingerella died as a result of the actions of the defendant.

l3

Proximate Cause

The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
proximately caused the death of Joseph Gingerella. Proximate cause does not
necessarily mean the last act or cause, or the act in point of time nearest to the
death. The concept of proximate cause incorporates the principle that an
accused may be charged with a criminal offense even though his acts were
not the immediate cause of the death.

An act or omission to act is a proximate cause of the death when it
substantially and materially contributes, in a natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by an ef?cient, intervening cause, to the death. It is a
cause without which the death would not have occurred. It is a
predominating cause, a substantial factor from which the death follows as a
natural, direct and immediate consequence.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the
defendant intended to cause the death of another person; and 2) in accordance
with that intent, the defendant caused the death of Joseph Gingerella.

If you unanimously ?nd that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt
each of the elements of the crime of murder, then you shall consider the
defense of self-defense which I will explain in a moment. On the other hand,
if you unanimously ?nd that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt any of the elements, you shall then ?nd the defendant not guilty of
murder and consider the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the ?rst
degree with a ?rearm which I will also explain later in these instructions.

Self-Defense -- 53a-19

The evidence in this case raises the issue of self-defense. Self-defense
applies to the charge of murder and the lesser included offense of
manslaughter in the ?rst degree with a ?rearm which, again, I will explain in

14

a few moments. After you have considered all of the evidence in this case, if
you ?nd that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of
the crime of murder, you must go on to consider whether or not the defendant
acted in self-defense.

A person is justi?ed in the use of force against another person that would
otherwise be illegal if he is acting in the defense of self. It is a complete
defense to certain crimes, including murder and manslaughter. When, as in
this case, evidence of self-defense is introduced at trial, the state must not
only prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged
to obtain a conviction, but must also disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant acted in self?defense. If the state fails to disprove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant acted in self-defense, you must ?nd the
defendant not guilty despite the fact that you have found the elements of the
crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has no burden of
proof whatsoever with respect to this defense.

There is a statute that de?nes self-defense and you are to apply that de?nition
in reviewing the evidence in this case and not apply any common or
colloquial meaning that you may have heard before. The statute de?ning self-
defense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is justi?ed in using reasonable physical force upon another person to
defend himself from what he reasonably believes to be 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.

The statute requires that, before a defendant uses physical force upon another
person to defend himself, he must have two ?reasonable beliefs.? The ?rst is
a reasonable belief that physical force is then being used or about to be used
upon him. The second is a reasonable belief that the degree of force he is
using to defend himself from what he believes to be an ongoing or imminent
use of force is necessary for that purpose.

15

Deadly and non-deadly physical force
The law distinguishes non-deadly physical force from deadly physical force.
The parties agree in this case that the force used was deadly.

Reasonable beliefs

Once you have determined whether the defendant has used deadly or non-
deadly force, you must then go on to consider whether the defendant
justi?ably acted in self-defense.

Each of the reasonable belief requirements of the statute requires you to ask
two questions. The ?rst question you must ask is, did the defendant actually
have the belief in question when he acted as he did. The second question you
must ask is whether the defendant?s actual belief was reasonable, in the sense
that a reasonable person in the defendant?s circumstances at the time of his
actions, viewing those circumstances from the defendant?s point of View,
would have shared that belief. A defendant cannot justi?ably act on his actual
belief, if that belief would not have been shared by a reasonable person in his
circumstances, viewing those circumstances from the defendant?s point of
view. Therefore, the defense of self-defense has four elements:

Element 1 - Actual belief regardi_ng use of physical force by other person
The ?rst element is that when the defendant used defensive force against
Joseph Gingerella, he actually believed that the other person was using
physical force against him or that the use of physical force against him was
imminent. The word ?imminent? means that the person is about to use
physical force at that time and not at some unspeci?ed future time.

If you have found that the force used by the defendant was deadly physical
force, then you must ?nd that the defendant actually believed that Joseph
Gingerella was not only using or about to use physical force upon him, but
that the other person was either using or about to use deadly physical force
against him, or in?icting or about to in?ict great bodily harm upon him. The
term ?great? has its ordinary meaning and indicates a bodily harm that is
substantially more than minor or inconsequential harm.

16

The act of Joseph Gingerella leading to the defendant?s use of defensive
physical force need not be an actual threat or assault. The test is not what the
other person actually intended, but what the other person?s act caused the
defendant to believe was the intention of the other. In other words, the danger
to which the defendant was reacting need not have been actual or real. In
judging the danger to himself, the defendant is not required to act with
infallible judgment. A person acting in self-defense is sometimes required to
act instantly and without time to deliberate and investigate. Under such
circumstances it is possible to perceive an actual threat when none in fact
existed.

Element 2 Reasonableness of that belief

The second element is that the defendant?s actual belief about the force being
used or about to be used against him was a reasonable belief. This means that
under the circumstances of the case, viewing those circumstances from the
defendant?s point of view, the defendant?s actual belief that Joseph
Gingerella was using or about to use physical force or deadly physical force
against him was reasonable because a reasonable person in the defendant?s
situation at the time of his actions, viewing the circumstances from the
defendant?s point of View, would have shared that belief.

Element 3 - Actual belief regarding degree of force necessary

The third element is that when the defendant used physical force upon Joseph
Gingerella for the purpose of defending himself, he actually believed that the
degree of force he used was necessary for that purpose. This applies whether
you have found that the defendant used deadly physical force or not. The
question is whether the defendant believed that it was necessary to use the
degree of force that he used to defend himself from the attack.

 

Element 4 - Reasonableness of that belief

The fourth element is that the defendant?s actual belief about the degree of
force necessary to defend himself was a reasonable belief. This means that
under the circumstances of the case, viewing those circumstances from the
defendant?s point of View, the defendant?s actual belief that the degree of
force used was necessary to defend himself was reasonable because a

17

reasonable person in the defendant?s circumstances at the time of his actions,
viewing those circumstances from the defendant?s point of view, would have
shared that belief.

Exceptions to Use of Deadly Physical Force: Duty to Retreat
?53a?19 

In addition, the state can defeat the defendant's claim of self-defense by
proving one of the statutory disquali?cations to the use of deadly physical
force. The statute de?ning self-defense describes certain circumstances in
which a person is not justi?ed in using deadly physical force in self-defense
against another. These exceptions apply only to the use of deadly force, so if
you have found that the defendant used deadly physical force, you must
consider the disquali?cation.

A person is not justi?ed in using deadly physical force upon another person
if he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete
safety by retreating. This disquali?cation requires a defendant to retreat
instead of using deadly physical force whenever two conditions are met: 1) a
completely safe retreat is in fact available to him; and 2) he knows that he can
avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force by making that completely
safe retreat. The law stresses that self-defense cannot be retaliatory. It must
be defensive and not punitive.

The term "complete safety," as used in this statute, means without any injury
to the defendant whatsoever. A person acts "knowingly" with respect to a
circumstance described in a statute when he is aware that such circumstance
exists.

It is important to remember that the defendant has no burden whatsoever to
prove that he could not have retreated with complete safety or that he didn't
know that a safe retreat was possible before he used physical force against
Joseph Gingerella. To the contrary, you may only reject his defense on the
basis of this statutory disquali?cation if you ?nd that the state has proved

18

beyond a reasonable doubt that he did know that he could retreat with
complete safety.

The state?s burden

You must remember that the defendant has no burden of proof whatsoever
with respect to the defense of self-defense. Instead, it is the state that must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self?
defense if it is to prevail on its charge of murder, or of the lesser-included
offense on which you will be instructed. To meet this burden, the state need
not disprove all four of the elements of self-defense. Instead, it can defeat the
defense of self-defense by disproving any one of the four elements of self-
defense beyond a reasonable doubt to your unanimous satisfaction.

You must also ?nd that the defendant did not act in self-defense, if you ?nd
that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a
duty to retreat from the physical encounter because he knew he could do so
with complete safety.

Conclusion

If you unanimously ?nd that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt any of the elements of a crime to which self-defense applies, you shall
then ?nd the defendant not guilty and not consider the defense.

If you unanimously ?nd that all the elements of a crime to which self-defense
applies have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you shall then consider
the defense of self-defense. If you unanimously ?nd that the state has
disproved beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of the
defense or has proved the statutory disquali?cation, you must reject that
defense and ?nd the defendant guilty.

If, on the other hand, you unanimously ?nd that the state has not disproved
beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of the defense, or has
not proved the statutory disquali?cation, then on the strength of that defense
alone you must ?nd the defendant not guilty despite the fact that you have
found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable

doubt

19

I am now going to charge you on the lesser included offense associated with
count one.

Lesser Included Offense: Manslaughter in the First Degree (Reckless
Indifference) with a Firearm: C.G.S.8 5321-55 

If you unanimously ?nd that the state has failed to prove one or more of the
essential elements of the crime charged in count one, Murder, beyond a
reasonable doubt, you must next consider whether the lesser included offense
of Manslaughter in the First Degree (Reckless Indifference) with a Firearm
has been proven. Under this ?lesser included offense? rule of law, ?m
only it? you ?nd that the State has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt the
elements of the crime speci?cally charged, Murder, you then must go on to
consider whether the State has established beyond a reasonable doubt the
elements of the lesser included offense. Before you consider this lesser
included crime, however, you must ?rst unanimously ?nd the defendant not
guilty of the crime of Murder by way of the failure of the State to prove any
element of the crime. Therefore, if you have found the defendant guilty on
count one, you do not consider the following lesser included offense.

With respect to the lesser included offense of Manslaughter in the First
Degree (Reckless Indifference) with a Firearm, our statutes provide:

a person is guilty of manslaughter in the ?rst degree with a ?rearm
when he commits manslaughter in the ?rst degree, and in the
commission of such offense he uses a pistol, revolver, or other ?rearm.

For you to ?nd the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the
following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Committed manslaughter in the ?rst degree
The ?rst element is that the defendant committed manslaughter in the ?rst
degree (Reckless Indifference). The statute de?ning this offense reads in

20

pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of manslaughter in the ?rst degree when under
circumstances evincing an extreme indifference to human life, he
recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to
another person, and thereby causes the death of another person.

For the defendant to be found guilty of this charge, the state must prove the
following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Conduct creating a grave risk of death
The ?rst element is that the defendant engaged in conduct that created a
grave risk of death.

Element 2 - Recklessness

The second element is that the defendant acted recklessly. A person acts
"recklessly" with respect to a result or circumstances when he is aware of and
consciously disregards a substantial and unjusti?able risk that such result will
occur or that such circumstances exist. A person acts "recklessly" with
respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute de?ning an
offense when the defendant is aware of and consciously disregards a
substantial and unjusti?able risk that such result will occur or that such
circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that
disregarding it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that
a reasonable person would observe in the situation. The standard of conduct
of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant is the doing of
something that a reasonably prudent person would do under the
circumstances or omitting to do what a reasonably prudent person would not
do under the circumstances.

A gross deviation is a great or substantial deviation, not just a slight or
moderate deviation. There must be a great or substantial difference between,
on the one hand, the defendant's conduct in disregarding a substantial and
unjusti?able risk, and, on the other hand, what a reasonable person would
have done under the circumstances. Whether a risk is substantial and

21

unjusti?able is a question of fact for you to determine under all the
circumstances.

Element 3 - Extreme indifference to human life

The third element is that the defendant's conduct demonstrated an extreme
indifference to human life. "Indifference" means simply not caring. It means
lacking any interest in a matter one way or the other. Extreme means existing
in the highest or greatest possible degree. Extreme indifference is more than
ordinary indifference. It is synonymous with excessive and is the greatest
departure from the ordinary. What evinces an extreme indifference to human
life is a question of fact.

Element 4 Caused death

The fourth element is that the defendant's conduct caused the death of Joseph
Gingerella. This means that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause
of the decedent's death. You must ?nd it proved beyond a reasonable doubt
that Joseph Gingerella died as a result of the actions of the defendant. You
will recall and apply my instructions with regard to proximate cause here.

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the
defendant engaged in conduct that created a grave risk of death, 2) the
defendant acted recklessly, 3) he acted under circumstances evincing an
extreme indifference to human life, and 4) the defendant caused the death of
Joseph Gingerella.

If you unanimously ?nd that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt
each of the elements of the crime of Manslaughter in the First Degree
(Reckless Indifference), then you shall ?nd this ?rst element of the offense of
Manslaughter in the First Degree with a Firearm to be established and you
should consider the second element. On the other hand, if you unanimously
?nd that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the
elements, you shall then ?nd the defendant not guilty of the lesser included
offense of Manslaughter in the First Degree (Reckless Indifference) with a
Firearm.

22

Element 2 - With a ?rearm

The second element is that the defendant used a ?rearm. The term "?rearm"
includes any pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded,
from which a shot may be discharged. You must ?nd that the ?rearm was
operable at the time of the offense.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the
elements of the crime of Manslaughter in the First Degree (Reckless
Indifference) and that in the commission of the crime, the defendant used a
?rearm. If you unanimously ?nd that the state has failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then ?nd the defendant not
guilty on this lesser included offense. If you unanimously ?nd that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
Manslaughter in the First Degree (Reckless Indifference) with a Firearm, you
shall then consider the defense of self defense. This defense applies to this
lesser included offense. You are to apply my instructions with regard to this
defense as previously provided. If you unanimously ?nd that the state has
disproved beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of the elements of the
defense or has proved the statutory disquali?cation, you must reject that
defense and ?nd the defendant guilty. If, on the other hand, you unanimously
?nd that the state has not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt at least one of
the elements of the defense, or has not proved the statutory disquali?cation,
then on the strength of that defense alone you must ?nd the defendant not
guilty despite the fact that you have found the elements of the crime proved
beyond a reasonable doubt.

CONCLUDING

Duties Upon Retiring

In conclusion, I impress upon you that you are duty bound as jurors to
determine the facts on the basis of the evidence as it has been presented, to
apply the law as I have outlined it, and then to render a verdict of guilty or
not guilty. When you reach a verdict, it must be unanimous. It is the duty of
each juror to discuss and consider the opinions of the other jurors. Despite

23

that, in the last analysis, it is your individual duty to make up your own mind
and to decide this case upon the basis of your own individual judgment and
conscience.

I remind you that you have the right to request portions of the testimony to be
played back to you, if you deem it essential during your deliberations. You
will have all the exhibits with you during your deliberations with certain
exceptions which I will explain in a moment.

Note-Taking

If you took notes during the evidence, you may use them during deliberations
and you may discuss your notes with your fellow jurors. Remember that
notes are merely aids to your memory and should not be given precedence
over your independent recollection of the evidence. If there is a con?ict
between your recollection and your notes or the notes of any other juror, it is
your recollection of the evidence that must prevail.

Your notes or the notes of any other juror are not evidence. You will recall
my earlier de?nition of what constitutes evidence. Your verdict must be
based exclusively on evidence presented at trial and the principles of law
given to you in these ?nal instructions.

A juror who has not taken notes should rely on his or her recollection of the
evidence and should not be in?uenced by the fact that other jurors have taken
notes. Notes are only a tool and are not always accurate. Do not assume that
a voluminous note-taker has taken notes that are necessarily more accurate
than your memory.

You may discuss your notes with your fellow jurors during the deliberation
phase. The decision to do so is yours and yours alone. After the trial is
concluded all notes will be collected by the court staff and destroyed.

I remind you that you have the right to request portions of the testimony to be
played back to you, if you deem it essential during your deliberations. You
will have all the exhibits with you during your deliberations.

24

Sympathy
In deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, you should not

concern yourselves with the punishment or potential consequence in the
event of a conviction. This is a matter exclusively within the court's function
under the limitations and restrictions imposed by statute. You are to ?nd the
defendant guilty or not guilty unin?uenced by the possible punishment or
consequence that may follow conviction.

You should not be in?uenced by any sympathy for the defendant, the
defendant's family, the decedent, the decedent's family, or for any other
person who might in any way be affected by your decision.

In addition, as I indicated earlier, your verdict must be based on the evidence
and you may not go outside the evidence to ?nd facts; that is, you may not
resort to guesswork, conjecture or suspicion, and you must not be in?uenced
by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices, biases or sympathy.
You should be aware of the possibility that you have implicit biases. Being
aware of the possibility of such biases may help you avoid their in?uence
throughout your decision-making process.

In sum, your task is to render a verdict based on facts and not on concerns
about punishment, sympathy, prejudice or bias. I instruct you that decisions
based upon biases for or against other people or stereotypes regarding other
people have no place in the courtroom.

With that, you may now retire to the jury room. Do not begin deliberations
until you have selected one of your members to be the foreperson of the jury
and you have received the information and exhibits.

You may only deliberate when all twelve of you are present in the jury room.
Inform the judicial marshal when you have reached a verdict, but do not tell
him or her your verdict. When your have reached a verdict you will be asked
to return to the courtroom where your verdict will be announced and the
jurors will be asked whether they concur with the verdict.

25

If you have any questions please send them out as a note, signed by the
foreperson marked with the time. Please be as speci?c as possible. I remind
you that you have the right to request portions of the testimony to be played
back to you, if you deem it essential during your deliberations. You will
have the exhibits with you during your deliberations.

However, I should note that not all of the exhibits will be in the jury
deliberation room with you. Certain videos which were played for you
during the course of the testimony will remain available in the courtroom and
if you wish to review that evidence, let us know that in writing and you will
be brought out to the courtroom where the evidence can be played using the
equipment available in the courtroom.

You will also have with you in the jury room a copy of the these instructions
which will be marked as a court exhibit. I remind you, however, that you
should follow all of the court?s instructions and not single out some and
ignore others. They are all equally important. You will also have a verdict
form for your use in returning a verdict in this case.

26