Posts tagged with "physical injury"

Although Court Misinstructed the Jury on Essential Criminal Elements, Overwhelming Evidence of Guilt Supported the Conviction on Appeal

In a previous article, the defendant failed to convince the Appellate Court that the State provided insufficient evidence to convict him of numerous charges arising from a robbery incident. He further contended that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury regarding attempt to commit assault in the first degree, and its failure to do so constituted harmful error that deprived him of his right to fair notice of the charges against him.

The defendant was charged for attempted assault under Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-59(a)(1), which requires a showing of attempted serious physical injury by use of a deadly weapon. However, the judge instructed the jury by the language of § 53a-59(a)(5), which only requires intent to cause physical injury by means of discharging a firearm. Because of this error, the defendant argued that the court improperly gave the jury a “legally inadequate theory of liability.”

It is harmless error for a court to give an instruction that improperly omits an essential criminal element “if a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that the omitted element was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.” This concept goes hand-in-hand with another principle of appellate review of jury instructions: “[T]he test of a court’s charge is… whether it fairly represents the case to the jury in such a way that injustice is not done to either party.”

In this case, the Appellate Court found that with respect to the element describing the type of weapon, the jury was not misled. It received a written copy of the jury charge for deliberation purposes, and within this document was the definition of “deadly weapon.” In addition, the jury found the defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree, which requires that the defendant be armed with a dangerous weapon while committing the crime.

In addition, the element regarding the seriousness of the attempted injury was satisfied by the evidence. It was undisputed that the perpetrator aimed for the cashier’s midsection while firing at close range. As the Court explained, “There can be no doubt that such action ‘creates a substantial risk of death, or… serious disfigurement… impairment of health… loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.” The defendant never contested this evidence at trial, only his identification as the perpetrator. Therefore, the Court found that the misinstruction was, beyond a reasonable doubt, harmless error and did not mislead the jury.

When faced with a charge of larceny, burglary, robbery, or attempt, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at

Continue Reading

“Intention Was Not to Summon Help, but Rather to Escape Detention”: Appellate Court Upholds Evading Responsibility Conviction

In a recent criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut considered a defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim following his conviction for evasion of responsibility in the operation of a motor vehicle (evading responsibility) in violation of Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) § 14-224(b).

This case arose from an incident that occurred shortly before midnight on March 5, 2005 near the Bethel-Danbury town line. The defendant was driving with two passengers when he lost control of his car, struck a telephone pole, and landed sideways on an embankment. All three safely exited the vehicle, and despite the close proximity of houses from which to seek help, the defendant and Passenger One ran into a nearby wooded area, leaving Passenger Two behind. Police responded to the scene, where they observed that the pole was “leaning dangerously low to the ground in such a way that the wires could be brought down by a passing vehicle.” In addition, they found Passenger Two, who was disoriented, bleeding, and in need of medical attention. Soon thereafter, the defendant and Passenger One were located at the latter’s house, which was located fairly nearby. Along their route were at least ten houses, but neither the defendant nor Passenger One stopped at any of these so they could contact the police or seek help. Neither sought help once they arrived at Passenger One’s residence.

The defendant was charged with two counts of evading responsibility: one for Passenger Two’s injuries, the other for the downed telephone pole. After subsequent conviction, the defendant appealed, arguing that he rendered assistance in compliance with CGS § 14-224(b), because Passenger Two’s injuries were only minor and he left the scene to get help. In addition, he argued that “[t]here was no assistance that [he] could have safely provided” with respect to the downed telephone pole.

To convict a criminal defendant of evading responsibility, the State must first prove: “(1) the defendant was operating a motor vehicle, (2) the defendant was knowingly involved in an accident and (3) the accident caused physical injury to any other person or damage to property.” When these threshold elements are established beyond a reasonable doubt, the State must establish one or more of the following: failure to (4) immediately stop and render necessary assistance; (5) provide identifying information with the person injured or owner of damaged property; or (6) if unable to satisfy (5), call police and leave such identifying information with them. In this case, the defendant did not contest the threshold inquiries, but argued that the State did not provide sufficient evidence, for both counts, the existence of the fourth element.

The Appellate Court was not persuaded by the defendant’s claims that he offered the requisite assistance prescribed in CGS § 14-224(b)(4). Passenger Two was clearly in need of medical attention, yet the defendant attempted to minimize the injuries. “A defendant cannot avoid his obligations under § 14-224 by engaging in post hoc speculation as to whether his assistance would have been necessary.” In addition, the Appellate Court found the defendant could have provided assistance regarding the downed telephone pole. At the very least, he could have called police or “alerted other motorists, who might have passed by, of the unsafe roadway condition from a position on the side of the road.” The trial court was free to reject the defendant’s arguments, and could have “reasonably inferred that the defendant’s intention was not to summon help, but rather to escape detection.” Therefore, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment.

When faced with a charge of evading responsibility, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at

Continue Reading