## Facts

- Michael Person and Leshea Pouncey were engaged; Pouncey ended the engagement and began dating another man.
- Person went to Pouncey’s apartment to retrieve belongings and forced entry when she was not home.
- When Pouncey returned, Person was in a bedroom; Pouncey approached with mace and two knives.
- A struggle followed; Person fatally stabbed Pouncey, fled, and later surrendered to police.
- Person claimed he acted under extreme emotional disturbance (EED) arising from the breakup and Pouncey’s new relationship.
- Person testified on direct that he was “somewhat” upset, but on cross stated he was “not really” upset; the defense presented no expert evidence of an extreme psychological condition.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence provided a sufficient foundation to require a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in a murder prosecution.
2. Whether a defendant’s equivocal or contradictory testimony about his emotional state can fail to satisfy the threshold showing needed to submit EED to the jury.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding Person’s murder conviction.
- The court held the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on EED because the record lacked sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find the defense proven.
- The court concluded Person’s own testimony did not support, and instead undermined, the claim that he was under an “extreme” emotional disturbance at the time of the killing.
- The court rejected reliance on surrounding circumstances alone as insufficient, on this record, to meet the evidentiary threshold for an EED instruction.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a requested instruction on a recognized defense only if the record contains evidence from which a rational jury could find in the defendant’s favor on that defense; conjecture or surmise is insufficient.
- Extreme emotional disturbance is an affirmative defense that mitigates murder to manslaughter when the defendant proves (1) a subjective extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the homicide and (2) a reasonable explanation or excuse from the standpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
- Because EED is an affirmative defense, the defendant bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to put the defense in issue and the burden of persuading the factfinder by a preponderance of the evidence.
- A trial court may decline to charge on EED when the defendant’s own evidence negates an element of the defense and the remaining circumstantial evidence does not supply a non-speculative basis for the required extreme emotional state.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Person’s murder conviction, holding that an EED instruction was not warranted because the evidence—particularly Person’s own testimony describing only mild or absent upset—did not provide a sufficient basis for a rational jury to find that he acted under an extreme emotional disturbance with a reasonable explanation or excuse.


State v. Person, 236 Conn. 342, 673 A.2d 463 (Conn. 1996)