STATE v. KENNETH GRIGGS, SC 18049

Judicial District of Hartford

 Criminal; Whether Trial Court Properly Instructed Jury on "Substantial Step" Element of Crime of Attempted Murder; Whether Court Properly Admitted Evidence of Defendant's Prior Crimes.  In connection with an incident involving a seventy-seven year old victim, the defendant, who had known the victim for many years, was charged with attempted murder, first degree burglary, first degree robbery, first degree larceny and second degree larceny, among other things.  At trial, the state's theory of the case was that the defendant unlawfully entered the victim's apartment, struck the victim in the head, struggled with him and pushed him down a metal staircase, causing his portable oxygen tank to dislodge.  It also claimed that the defendant stole the victim's money and car and took his cell phone away from him, preventing him from calling for help and leaving him to die.  The defendant's defense was that he arrived at the victim's apartment and found him injured on the ground.  He claimed that he offered to help the victim but that the victim refused and accused him of stealing.  He further alleged that these accusations upset him and that he picked up the victim's cell phone, which he claims was not working, and left the building without calling for help because he did not think that the victim's injuries were serious.  At the start of the trial, the defendant requested that the state amend its bill of particulars with respect to the attempted murder charge.  The bill of particulars indicated that the defendant's act of taking the victim's cell phone away and not calling for help after observing the victim's condition constituted a substantial step in the defendant's plan

to commit murder.  The defendant requested that this language be omitted from the bill of particulars on the ground that his "omission" of failing to call for help could not be considered a substantial step in the commission of a crime because he did not cause the victim's injuries and therefore had no duty to act.  The court denied the defendant's request to amend, ruling that both acts and omissions to act may constitute a substantial step in the commission of the crime.  Thereafter, in charging the jury on the crime of attempted murder, the court explained that the defendant's failure to render assistance to the victim, in and of itself, did not constitute a substantial step planned to culminate in the commission of murder.  The court subsequently convicted the defendant of the aforementioned crimes.  In this appeal, the defendant argues that the court's jury instruction regarding the substantial step element of the attempted murder charge lacked sufficient guidance for the jury to determine when a duty to act arises.  He also argues that the court improperly admitted irrelevant and prejudicial testimony of a state's witness and improperly admitted evidence of his prior crimes.