## Facts

- Jessie Garrison was visiting his sister’s apartment in Hartford on January 2, 1982.
- The victim, Jeremiah Sharp, had intermittently lived at the apartment and kept clothing there; he and Garrison’s sister had recently quarreled.
- Sharp arrived intoxicated, argued with Garrison’s sister, and continued the confrontation with Garrison after she retreated to her bedroom.
- Sharp reached into his jacket; Garrison saw a pistol in Sharp’s waistband and removed it, successfully disarming him.
- After being disarmed, Sharp took a steak knife from the kitchen and advanced toward Garrison with the knife raised.
- Garrison, sober and familiar with the apartment layout, was positioned near a doorway to an adjacent room.
- Rather than withdraw, Garrison fired the pistol, killing Sharp.
- At a bench trial, Garrison asserted self-defense and defense of premises; the court rejected both and convicted him of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Garrison committed manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm notwithstanding his claim of self-defense.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to disprove justification under defense of premises.
3. Whether the factfinder could reasonably conclude that Garrison had a safe avenue of retreat and used greater force than reasonably necessary.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the conviction after reviewing the trial court’s post-remand articulation.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the trier of fact to find the state disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the trier of fact to reject defense of premises.
- The court concluded the trial court reasonably found Garrison could have retreated in complete safety and that shooting was excessive under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- On a sufficiency challenge, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict; the question is whether a rational factfinder could find the elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Once self-defense is properly raised, the state must disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Deadly force in self-defense is permitted only if the defendant reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent the use or imminent use of deadly force; the belief must be objectively reasonable.
- A safe avenue of retreat can defeat a claim that deadly force was necessary when retreat can be accomplished with complete safety and the defendant is not within an applicable no-retreat exception.
- Defense of premises does not authorize deadly force merely to remove an unwanted person; its use remains limited and depends on statutory conditions and the absence of reasonably safe, less harmful alternatives.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Garrison’s manslaughter conviction because the trier of fact could reasonably find that, after disarming an intoxicated assailant and while having a safe means to withdraw, Garrison’s decision to shoot with a firearm was not necessary and therefore was not justified as self-defense or defense of premises.


State v. Garrison, 203 Conn. 466, 525 A.2d 498 (Conn. 1987)