State v. Leveille
Citations
- 232 Conn. App. 687
Syllabus
Convicted, following a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, the defendant appealed. The defendant, who had a confrontation with M in a brewery and repeatedly stabbed M in the head and face with a broken beer glass, claimed, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Held: The evidence provided a sufficient basis from which the jury reasonably could have inferred that the defendant acted with the specific intent to cause M serious physical injury, as surveillance video depicted the defen- dant's attack on M, and the defendant testified that he knew the glass could pose a danger to M and that what he was doing could seriously injure M. Testimony from a paramedic and a physician who treated M provided ample evidence from which the jury reasonably could have concluded that the defendant caused M serious physical injury, either in the form of serious disfigurement or a serious loss or impairment of the function of M's skin and left ear, which hung from his face as a result of the defendant's attack. The defendant's contention that the state failed to disprove his claim of self-defense was unavailing, as none of the evidence, including surveillance video of the incident, supported his assertion that M had threatened to use physical force against the defendant, a text message the defendant sent to his date that evening after the stabbing supported the reasonable inference that the defendant did not believe he had acted in self-defense, and the jury reasonably could have concluded that the defendant's belief that he used the degree of physical force necessary to defend himself was not objectively reasonable in light of his testimony that he had no reason to believe that M possessed a weapon and that he continued attacking M with the glass even as he saw that M was not trying to defend himself. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's jury instruction on serious physical injury was not constitutionally deficient because
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- testimony by victim and physician that victim suffered lacerations to chin, forehead, cheeks, and major damage to ear helped establish seri- ous impairment of health
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Alvord; Elgo; Cradle
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. StevensonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-06-15· cited 228×
- DiFranco v. PickardMichigan Supreme Court· 1986-12-23· cited 173×
- Washington v. BaxterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1998-10-29· cited 129×
- State v. LedbetterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-04-01· cited 44×
- State v. NelsonConnecticut Appellate Court· 2010-01-19· cited 37×
- State v. GriggsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-07-29· cited 29×
- State v. MoyeConnecticut Appellate Court· 2010-02-02· cited 15×
- State v. Daniel B.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-03-05· cited 11×
- State v. WynterConnecticut Appellate Court· 1989-09-12· cited 9×
- State v. Barry A.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2013-09-10· cited 9×
- State v. LewisConnecticut Appellate Court· 2013-11-05· cited 9×
- State v. HaywardConnecticut Appellate Court· 2009-08-18· cited 8×
- State v. PetionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-07-23· cited 8×
- State v. Morlo M.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2021-08-10· cited 8×
- State v. BillingsConnecticut Appellate Court· 2022-12-20· cited 8×
- State v. Charles L.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2023-01-24· cited 3×
- State v. SantiagoConnecticut Appellate Court· 2021-08-03· cited 2×
- Sanchez v. HartfordConnecticut Appellate Court· 2024-09-03· cited 2×
- State v. MillerConnecticut Appellate Court· 2024-12-10· cited 2×
- State v. BrownConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-06-30· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.