Opinion
(14796)
Argued January 4, 1994
Decision released February 1, 1994
Two part information charging the defendant, in the first part, with the crime of assault in the second degree and, in the second part, with being a persistent felony offender, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Windham, geographical area number eleven, and tried to the jury on the first part of the information before Dunn, J.; verdict of guilty; thereafter, the defendant was presented to the court on a plea of nolo contendere to the second part of the information and the court rendered judgment of guilty in accordance with the verdict and the plea, from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, Daly and Foti, Js., with Heiman, J., dissenting, which reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial, and the state, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
Rita M. Shair, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Mark S. Solak, state's attorney, Paul J. Ferencek, assistant state's attorney, and Mark Stabile, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (state).
William H. Paetzold, deputy assistant public defender, for the appellee (defendant).
The sole issue in this criminal appeal is whether the defendant, Paul W. Deptula, who was convicted of the charge of assault in the second degree, presented sufficient evidence of self-defense at trial to entitle him to an instruction to the jury on that issue. In State v. Deptula, 31 Conn. App. 140, 143-48, 623 A.2d 525 (1993), the Appellate Court concluded that the trial court had improperly failed to give such an instruction. We granted the petition of the plaintiff, the state of Connecticut, to appeal the merits of this conclusion.
We granted the state's petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support an instruction on self-defense?" State v. Deptula, 226 Conn. 911, 628 A.2d 984 (1993).
After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.