State v. Clark, supra, 264 Conn. at 730–32, 826 A.2d 128. For a comprehensive doctrinal explanation of justification defenses such as self-defense, see State v. Singleton, 292 Conn. 734, 746–49, 974 A.2d 679 (2009), and State v. Montanez, 277 Conn. 735, 752–53, 894 A.2d 928 (2006). We conclude that the jury instructions' use of the terms “honest” and “sincere” to describe the nature of the subjective belief required by the defendant are an accurate statement of the law that are not likely to mislead jurors.
State v. Clark, supra, 264 Conn. at 730–32, 826 A.2d 128.For a comprehensive doctrinal explanation of justification defenses such as self-defense, see State v. Singleton, 292 Conn. 734, 746–49, 974 A.2d 679 (2009), and State v. Montanez, 277 Conn. 735, 752–53, 894 A.2d 928 (2006). We conclude that the jury instructions' use of the terms “honest” and “sincere” to describe the nature of the subjective belief required by the defendant are an accurate statement of the law that are not likely to mislead jurors.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Singleton, 292 Conn. 734, 745, 974 A.2d 679 (2009). “It is well established that a defect in a jury charge which raises a constitutional question is reversible error if it is reasonably possible that, considering the charge as a whole, the jury was misled.”
Like other justifications, self-defense “represents a legal acknowledgement that the harm caused by otherwise criminal conduct is, under special justifying circumstances, outweighed by the need to avoid an even greater harm or to further a greater societal interest.” State v. Singleton, 292 Conn. 734, 974 A.2d 679, 689 (2009) (quotation marks omitted). “[T]he law relating to self-defense is designed to afford protection to one beset by an aggressor and confronted by necessity not of his own making.”
Although accident and self-defense are separate and inherently inconsistent claims, our law recognizes the ability of a defendant to raise them as alternative theories. See, e.g., State v. Singleton , 292 Conn. 734, 753 n.14, 974 A.2d 679 (2009). The defendant's direct examination continued the next day and he claimed that on the night of August 9, 2014, he stopped at a stop sign when he heard a "boom" and heard something hit the front door of the Avalanche.
See, e.g., 6 W. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure (4th Ed. 2015) § 22.1 (e), p. 26. Although, at times, we have spoken loosely of the "elements" of a self-defense claim; e.g., State v. Singleton , 292 Conn. 734, 747, 974 A.2d 679 (2009) ; the different components of a justification defense are not, strictly speaking, essential elements. Rather, they are more properly thought of as "special triggering circumstances ...."
These defenses operate to exempt from punishment otherwise criminal conduct when the harm from such conduct is deemed to be “outweighed by the need to avoid an even greater harm or to further a greater societal interest.... Thus, conduct that is found to be justified is, under the circumstances, not criminal.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Singleton, 292 Conn. 734, 748–49, 974 A.2d 679 (2009). “All justification defenses share a similar internal structure: special triggering circumstances permit a necessary and proportional response.”
In advancing this argument, the petitioner aptly notes that "Connecticut considers accident and self-defense separate and inherently inconsistent claims, although a defendant may raise them as alternative theories." State v. Singleton , 292 Conn. 734, 753 n.14, 974 A.2d 679 (2009). Indeed, "it is well established that it is not improper for defense counsel to pursue defenses that are inconsistent with each other."
To obtain a conviction, the state had to sustain its burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt any of the essential elements of self-defense involving the use of deadly physical force or to sustain its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the statutory exceptions to self-defense codified in § 53a-19 (b) and (c) applied. See State v. Singleton , 292 Conn. 734, 747–48, 974 A.2d 679 (2009) ; State v. Corchado , 188 Conn. 653, 663–64, 453 A.2d 427 (1982). "[U]pon a valid claim of self-defense, a defendant is entitled to proper jury instructions on the elements of self-defense so that the jury may ascertain whether the state has met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the assault was not justified."
United States District Judge State v. Singleton, 292 Conn. 734, 777-78 (2009) (Palmer and Katz, JJs, dissenting).