Court Opinion

ID: 9712553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:56:12.303724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:12.992287
License: Public Domain

Shea, J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the portion of the majority opinion which concludes that the charge as given by the trial court provided sufficient “practical guidance” to the jury with respect to its consideration of the evidence of the defendant’s “mental retardation in deciding whether he was capable of forming the specific intent necessary to constitute the crime charged,” as requested. The remark of the majority that the charge upon this subject, an excerpt of which is *214quoted in the opinion, “was not as pellucid as possible” is an understatement, but that is not the point I wish to make. Nowhere in this part of the charge, which purports to comply with the request, is there any reference to the specific intent required as an element of the offense of assault in the first degree, i.e., “to cause serious physical injury to another person . . . . ” General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1). Earlier in the charge the court had discussed this mental element of the crime as well as those for two lesser included offenses, assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree. No mention was then made of the mental retardation evidence, although there had been a previous reference in the instructions on credibility to the testimony of expert witnesses about “the ability of the defendant to comprehend.” It was not until the conclusion of the instructions upon self-defense that the court briefly summarized the evidence of the defendant’s mental retardation, as quoted in'the majority opinion, closing this part of the charge as follows: “And, you would have to decide, based upon his ability to understand the circumstances and conditions, as to whether he acted with or without reason. I say that is your determination; and with or without intent to commit the crime, because those are necessary elements.” (Emphasis added.)
The majority regards this passing reference to “intent to commit the crime” as sufficient compliance with a request for an instruction that the evidence of mental retardation be considered in deciding whether the defendant had the capacity to form the specific intent necessary for the crime. I do not. “It is the law of this state that a request to charge which is relevant to the issues of a case and which is an accurate statement of the law must be given.” *215Mazzucco v. Krall Coal & Oil Co., 172 Conn. 355, 357, 374 A.2d 1047 (1977). The placement of the instruction at the very end of an elaborate discussion of self-defense and the blending of the two issues upon which the mental retardation evidence was pertinent must have been highly confusing, especially when no attempt was made to relate the evidence to the previous discussion of intent. More importantly, the allusion to “intent to commit the crime” which is relied upon simply is not a sufficient reference to the specific intent required as an element of a particular crime. “When a mental element is a constituent of a crime, the character of that element must be identified.” State v. Bitting, 162 Conn. 1, 5, 291 A.2d 240 (1971). “Intent to commit the crime” would ordinarily be understood to refer to the general intent to do the proscribed act, the physical assault, rather than to the specific mental element demanded by the statute. Ibid. “When the elements of a crime include a defendant’s intent to achieve some result additional to the act, the additional language distinguishes the crime from those of general intent and makes it one requiring specific intent.” Ibid. Nowhere in the passage of the charge relied upon by the majority is there any mention of specific intent as distinguished from general intent which would have advised the jury to weigh the evidence of mental retardation on that essential element of the crime as the defendant requested.
The majority opinion concedes the validity of the point of law made in the defendant’s request and does not dispute that he was entitled to that instruction. The earlier discussion of specific intent as an element of the crimes involved, which omitted any reference to mental retardation, cannot be deemed *216to meet the request. The later allusion to “his ability to understand the circumstances and conditions, as to whether he acted with or without reason. . . . and with or without intent to commit the crime” does not mention specific intent but is phrased in the language of general intent.
Accordingly, I dissent.
In this opinion Peters, J., concurred.