Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ALLEN LAMONT JAMES (AC 30910)
Harper, Beach and Borden, Js. Argued October 27, 2010--officially released January 25, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Schimelman, J.) Robert E. Byron, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Paul J. Narducci, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael L. Regan, state's attorney, David J. Smith, senior assistant state's attorney, and Daniel Morelli, certified legal intern, for the appellee (state).

Opinion

BORDEN, J. In State v. Carpenter, 214 Conn. 77, 570 A.2d 203 (1990), on appeal after remand, 220 Conn. 169, 595 A.2d 881 (1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1034, 112 S. Ct. 877, 116 L. Ed. 2d 781 (1992) (Carpenter I), our Supreme Court articulated what it later characterized as ``familiar language regarding proof beyond a reasonable doubt''; State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 131, 646 A.2d 169 (1994); namely, ``that any conclusion, reasonably to be drawn from the evidence, which is consistent with the innocence of the accused must prevail.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Carpenter I, supra, 84. This language, or language similar to it, had come to be known as the ``two inference'' instruction. See State v. Gant, 231 Conn. 43, 646 A.2d 835 (1994) (characterizing following language as ``two inference'' instruction: ``If the jury views the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions--one of innocence, the other of guilt--the jury should of course adopt the conclusion of innocence'' [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1038, 115 S. Ct. 1404, 131 L. Ed. 2d 291 (1995). The sole question in this appeal1 is whether the court must, when requested,2 instruct the jury using this language, despite the fact that its instructions on proof beyond a reasonable doubt are otherwise proper. We answer this question in the negative and, accordingly, affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction. The defendant, Allen Lamont James, was charged in a substitute information with murder in violation of General Statutes

Download State v. James.pdf

Connecticut Law