State v. O'Bryan

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that the jury instructions accurately stated Connecticut self-defense law. It upheld the use of “honest” and “sincere” to describe the required subjective belief, concluded that combat by agreement does not eliminate self-defense when an opponent unlawfully escalates the agreed terms, and approved the instructions requiring actual knowledge of that escalation and placing the burden on the state. The court also held that the charge, read as a whole, properly required the state to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.