State v. Lawrence
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** 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. TARRANCE LAWRENCE (AC 20446) Landau, Schaller and O Connell, Js. Argued September 19 officially released December 11, 2001 Counsel Gregory Cerritelli, special public defender, with whom, on the brief, were Tara L. Knight and Glenn M. Conway, special public defenders, for the appellant (defendant). Rita M. Shair, senior assistant state s attorney, with whom were Jose O. Castaneda, Jr., certified legal intern, and, on the brief, Michael Dearington, state s attorney, and David Gold, former supervisory assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55a, carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 and tampering with physical evidence in violation of General Statutes § 53a-155 (a) (1). The charges arose out of a shooting that occurred in Hamden on August 7, 1996. The sole claim on appeal is that the trial court s preliminary instructions to prospective jury panels on the concept of the presumption of innocence were so misleading that they could not be cured by the correct final instructions, thereby depriving the defendant of his due process right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. The defendant claims, in particular, that the court failed to explain clearly in its preliminary instructions that the defendant had the benefit of the presumption of innocence at the outset of the trial and that it remained throughout the trial. The defendant concedes that the court s final jury instructions given after the close of evidence and final arguments were correct in all respects, including the presumption of innocence. Because the defendant did not preserve this claim, we review it under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239 40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and the plain error doctrine. Practice Book § 60-5. The defendant s claim fails in both respects because as the defendant concedes, the final instructions on the presumption of innocence were correct. Moreover, our examination of the preliminary instructions to prospective jurors reveals that the preliminary instructions were not incorrect. We note that [a]lthough a judge in a criminal case may, in the exercise of sound discretion, provide a preliminary instruction to the jurors, such an instruction is not mandatory. . . . When preliminary instructions are given, they do not supersede those given after evidence and arguments under our practice. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lewis, 220 Conn. 602, 614, 600 A.2d 1330 (1991). The test is whether [t]he jury was fully and properly instructed at the critical time, after all the evidence and after the arguments of counsel. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. Because the preliminary instructions were not inaccurate and because the jury was fully and correctly instructed prior to deliberating, the defendant s claim fails. The judgment is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
