State v. Petion

Petion · Supreme Court of Connecticut · July 23, 2019

Summary

In this dissenting opinion, Justice Mullins argues that sufficient evidence supported a jury finding that the victim’s permanent, one-and-one-half-inch forearm scar constituted a serious disfigurement under General Statutes § 53a-3 (4). The dissent maintains that whether an injury substantially detracts from a person’s appearance is primarily a jury question and would affirm the Appellate Court’s judgment upholding the defendant’s conviction. The dissent does not reach whether State v. LaFleur should be overruled.

Court
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the Court
Mullins, J.; Robinson, C. J.; D'Auria, J.
Jurisdiction
Connecticut
Decision date
July 23, 2019
Procedural posture
Dissent from the Supreme Court of Connecticut's disposition concerning whether the victim's injury constituted serious disfigurement and whether the defendant's conviction should be upheld.
Standard of review
Whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find that the victim suffered serious disfigurement; the dissent emphasized that the determination is ordinarily a jury question and may be resolved as a matter of law only when no reasonable juror could reach that conclusion.
Precedential value
Dissenting opinion; not binding precedent.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedurestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureevidence sufficiency

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable juror to find that Bran's permanent forearm scar constituted a serious disfigurement under General Statutes § 53a-3 (4).
  2. Whether the court should reach the issue of overruling State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115, 51 A.3d 1048 (2012).

Key quotations

The source of my disagreement stems from the fact that the question of whether this injury constituted a serious disfigurement is a quintessential jury question.
Thus, I would conclude that the evidence presented in this case was sufficient for a reasonable juror to determine that Bran’s injury ‘‘is an impairment of or injury to the beauty, symmetry or appearance of a person of a magnitude that substantially detracts from the person’s appearance from the perspective of an objective observer.’’

Factual background

The defendant inflicted a larger cut on Rosa Bran's forearm that required ten stitches to close. The injury left a permanent scar approximately one and one-half inches long in a visible location. The dissent considered the injury's permanence, size, and visibility in assessing whether a reasonable juror could find that it substantially detracted from Bran's appearance.

Procedural history

The defendant, Divenson Petion, was convicted after injuring Rosa Bran. The Appellate Court entered a judgment that the dissent would affirm, and the matter was before the Supreme Court of Connecticut. The dissent disagreed with the majority's conclusion that no reasonable juror could find serious disfigurement.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…