State v. Jordan, 329 Conn. 272

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court considers whether a criminal defendant asserting self-defense may introduce the victim’s convictions for violent offenses that occurred after the charged incident to show that the victim initiated the confrontation. The court holds that subsequent convictions are not categorically inadmissible for that purpose, but affirms the conviction because any exclusionary error was harmless under the circumstances.

Holdings

1. There is no per se rule barring evidence of a victim's subsequent convictions for violent offenses when offered to show that the victim initiated the confrontation, rather than to establish the defendant's state of mind. Such evidence may be relevant and admissible if it satisfies the ordinary requirements of relevance, similarity, and probative value, subject to the trial court's discretion.
2. Even assuming that exclusion of the victim's subsequent assault and breach-of-peace convictions was an abuse of discretion, the defendant was not entitled to a new trial because he failed to show that the ruling substantially affected the jury's verdict.
3. A defendant asserting self-defense has no burden to prove the claim, but only a burden of production; once the defendant produces evidence supporting self-defense, the state bears the burden of disproving it, including by proving that the defendant was the initial aggressor.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a criminal defendant claiming self-defense is barred as a matter of law from introducing evidence of the victim's convictions for violent offenses that occurred after the charged incident to show that the victim initiated the confrontation.
2. Whether the exclusion of the victim's subsequent convictions, assuming it was erroneous, was harmless.

Disposition

affirmed