Jury Acquits Hunter In Killing Of DEP Officer

By EDMUND H. MAHONY
The Hartford Courant
March 21, 2001

DANIELSON - After deliberating less than two hours, a jury on Tuesday acquitted a deer hunter of all charges associated with fatally shooting a state conservation officer, apparently accepting the argument that the victim's camouflage clothing and behavior were a factor in what amounted to an accident.

The speed of the not guilty verdict stunned colleagues and family of state conservation officer James Spignesi Jr., as well as Windham County State's Attorney Mark Solak, who was using the case in part to deter unsafe hunting in Connecticut's dwindling open space.

The six-person jury from Windham County, in the state's rural northeast corner, cleared hunter Kevin P. O'Connell, a former state correction officer, of a charge of second-degree manslaughter. The charge carried a mandatory minimum sentence of a year in prison. Jurors also acquitted O'Connell, now 31, of the lesser, included offense of criminally negligent homicide, a misdemeanor.

After recovering from some surprise at word that jury deliberation had concluded so quickly, O'Connell, a tall, soft-spoken father of two young daughters, stood stoically and showed no surprise when the verdict was announced. Afterward, he apologized profusely to Spignesi's family and former colleagues at the state Department of Environmental Protection.

"I'd really like to apologize to them for the pain and suffering they've gone through," said O'Connell, who lost his job as a correction officer after the accident and has been working since as a carpenter. "I can't imagine how they feel. I'm very sorry this whole thing happened."

Spignesi's relatives and many of his colleagues had sat somberly in court since evidence in the case began on Feb. 28. They appeared somewhat relaxed and confident of a conviction earlier Tuesday afternoon when Solak and defense lawyer John Kelly of Orange completed their closing arguments.

But the relatives and friends were stunned when the jury foreman announced not guilty verdicts. Relatives complained among themselves that, in their view, O'Connell had never shown remorse. Then, visibly angered, they closeted themselves in Solak's office without saying more.

Outside the courthouse a dozen or so of Spignesi's colleagues gathered and one complained that the verdict seemed to trivialize Spignesi's death, which occurred on Nov. 20, 1998, while he was trying to enforce state hunting laws.

"It's like nothing ever happened," one said. "Absolutely nothing."

State marshals escorted the jurors from the courthouse through a secure exit after the 4:50 p.m. verdict. The jury members and alternates - two women and six men - drove off without elaborating on their unanimous decision.

That O'Connell killed Spignesi, a dedicated conservationist, with a single shot fired through the upper body from a deer rifle, has never been in dispute. All the evidence and argument in the case turned on the question of whether O'Connell's shot was so dangerously ill-advised that it amounted to an act of criminal recklessness.

O'Connell was hunting, with permission, on a friend's 17-acre field in Scotland. Spignesi and a partner in the state's environmental police were looking for illegal hunters on the third day of deer season for rifle hunters. They spotted O'Connell's car parked near an entrance to the field at about sunset.

Spignesi and his partner decided to investigate. Just when they investigated was in dispute. The day Spignesi died was dark and overcast and evening threatened rain. By law, hunting ended at sunset - 4:27 p.m. that day - and there was almost no light a half-hour later.

Undisputed testimony in the case showed that Spignesi and his partner donned camouflage jackets and made a conscious effort to walk onto the field without making any noise.

In his summation to jurors, Solak argued that O'Connell was frustrated by three days of unsuccessful hunting and decided to break the law and hunt in unsafe light after sunset. He reached the decision in part, Solak argued, because he was familiar with his friend's land.

"He was able to make a conscious decision to ignore the law ... to stay on the land to hunt well after sunset," Solak said.

Solak also tried to convince the jurors that firing in poor light was only one of O'Connell's errors in judgment. Collectively, he said, those errors amounted to criminal recklessness. O'Connell's position has always been that he fired at a large doe after studiously identifying it. Spignesi - unseen against a line of trees in his camouflage jacket and dark green uniform - was hit by accident, O'Connell's lawyer, Kelly, argued.

Kelly told jurors in his summation that even the prosecution evidence should convince them that there was enough light to identify and fire at a deer. After Spignesi was hit, his partner testified during the trial that he looked in the direction of the rifle report and clearly identified O'Connell as the shooter.

"They can't have it both ways," Kelly said.

What's more, Kelly argued that Spignesi's camouflage jacket - designed to hide his presence - should clear O'Connell of a charge that taking the shot was a substantial risk that the hunter consciously disregarded. Jurors needed to find that O'Connell disregarded the risk to conclude he acted with criminal recklessness or negligence.

"If you can't see them," Kelly said of the two conservation officers, "how can you make a conscious decision to disregard their presence and fire at them?"