State v. Clark (2003)

In State v. Clark, 264 Conn. 723, 731, 826 A.2d 128 (2003), the Court stated that such a charge was "improper because it injects an element into the self-defense calculus that need not be considered, namely, whether the victim was, in fact, using or about to use deadly force." Id., 732. The court stated that "according to a plain reading of this instruction . . . the state had to prove both elements in order for the jury to reject the defendant's claim of self-defense." Id., 734. Because the effect of that charge served to increase "the state's burden of disproving self- defense," the court concluded that this instruction was not harmful to the defendant. Id. As a result, the claim failed to satisfy the third prong of State v. Golding. Id.