Hartford — Chihan Eric Chyung, who has insisted from the beginning that he accidentally killed his newlywed wife Paige Anne Bennett at their Taftville home on June 2, 2009, may get another chance to tell his story to a jury.

Attorney Conrad O. Seifert argued Wednesday to the state Supreme Court that it should overturn Chyung's conviction because a jury in New London Superior Court had found Chyung guilty in 2014 of both murder and first-degree manslaughter with a firearm, two crimes Seifert said are mutually exclusive. The murder charge required that the jury find Chyung acted intentionally, while the manslaughter charge required a finding that he acted with reckless disregard for human life.

Just 17 days after they were married, Chyung shot Bennett after the couple fought about expenses, according to testimony at the trial. Chyung claimed his Glock 9 mm discharged accidentally when he attempted to pack it in a suitcase and leave the home. The state contended he intentionally killed his wife during a protracted argument.

Chyung, 53, who is serving a 40-year prison sentence, was not brought to court for the legal arguments, as per Supreme Court custom, but the woman he married during the trial was in the gallery with friends. The victim's daughters attended with friends and sat with representatives of the Survivors of Homicide support group.

Seifert cited cases in which the justices had overturned convictions based on inconsistent verdicts. He argued that trial Judge Barbara Bailey Jongbloed instructed the New London jury properly prior to its deliberations, but committed "a reversible error" when accepting and recording the contradictory guilty verdicts, which he said were "unforeseen and unexpected."

Prior to sentencing, Chyung's trial attorneys, Brian J. Woolf and Kathleen E. Rallo, had asked the judge to acquit Chyung due to the inconsistent verdicts. Instead, the judge vacated, or removed, the manslaughter charge and sentenced Chyung for murder. 

Justice Carmen E. Espinosa noted there is only one conviction as a result of Jongbloed's action and asked whether the outcome would have been the same had the jury only convicted Chyung of murder. Seifert said there was no way of knowing what went wrong in the jury's mind.

He quoted from a U.S. Supreme Court case, "When liberty is at stake, we do not think a shrug of the judicial shoulders is a sufficient response to an irrational conclusion."

Senior Assistant State's Attorney David J. Smith, who tried the case in New London, conceded Wednesday, after being pressed by Justices Andrew J. McDonald and Richard N. Palmer, that the state had argued at trial that the case was a murder, but had put forth a new theory in its appeal brief describing Chyung's actions as both reckless and intentional. He contended in the brief that Chyung had recklessly shot Bennett, and the crime had morphed to murder when he intentionally left her on the kitchen floor for two hours before calling 911.

The justices laughed when Smith said, in response to a question about his current position on the case, "My current position on the case is that I wish I could go back."

Asked why nobody requested jurors be told they should not consider the manslaughter charge if they found Chyung guilty of murder, Smith said the state had brought up the request during a chambers conference but had not put it on the record in open court.

The justices are expected to issue a decision within a few months.

k.florin@theday.com