Report of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Waterbury

Concerning the Investigation Into the Death of

Ethan Song in Guilford, CT on January 31, 2018

Background

On January 31, 2018, at approximately 15:31 hours the Guilford Fire Rescue 911 Communication
Center received a call reporting that a fifteen year old male identified as Ethan Song was suffering
from a gunshot wound to his head. This report had originated from a residence in the town of
Guilford. Upon arrival a few minutes later, Mr. Song was observed lying on his back in an upstairs
bedroom with an obvious wound to his temple. He was quickly transported to the Yale New Haven
Hospital for treatment and was pronounced dead at 16:03 hours by hospital personnel.

Jurisdiction

Concerned that the handling of the matter by the New Haven Judicial District could be perceived as a
potential conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety, New Haven State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin
requested that the matter be transferred to another jurisdiction for investigation and review. State’s
Attorney Griffin’s request was granted and the matter was assigned to Waterbury State’s Attorney
Maureen Platt on or about February 6, 2018. Since that date, all matters relating to Mr. Song’s death
have been handled by the Waterbury State’s Attorney’s Office.

Investigation

The Guilford Police Department immediately undertook an extensive investigation regarding this
matter. This investigation was aided by the Connecticut State Police Major Crime Squad who
processed the scene of the shooting. Numerous witnesses were interviewed, extensive forensic
examination was conducted, phone and computer records were analyzed, and other and all leads
were aggressively pursued.

Investigatory Results

Mr. Song’s death was a tragic event in that he accidentally shot himself in the head with a .357
magnum handgun which was stored in a master bedroom closet at the location where he was shot.
Mr. Song did not reside at this location and he was not related to the gun owner. This handgun was
one of three which was owned by an adult male who resided at the home. On the date in question, it
appears that all three weapons had been stored in a cardboard box inside of a large Tupperware
container in this closet. Each weapon was secured with an operable gun lock. There is no evidence
that the gun used was loaded at the time it was stored within the closet. However, ammunition for
the gun was located within the same small cardboard box next to the weapon used, inside of the
Tupperware container. It appears that this small cardboard box was hidden under some clothing in
the larger Tupperware container. Subsequent investigation has established that the keys to the
gunlocks on the three weapons were hidden in the same Tupperware container in a separate area
hidden under other clothing.
An exhaustive review has determined that during the months prior January 31, 2018, juveniles had
gained access to the adult male’s weapons and played with them on several occasions. It appears that
the weapons were returned to their original location after each access and there is no evidence that
the gun owner knew that the guns had been retrieved by the juveniles. Rather, it appears that there
was a deliberate attempt by the juveniles to withhold this information from the gun owner. There is
no evidence that Mr. Song knew that the gun responsible for his death was loaded or that he had any
role in loading it.

Applicable Law

Connecticut General Statute Sec 53a-217a (a) provides in part :

(a) A person is guilty of criminally negligent storage of a firearm when such person
violates the provisions of section 29-37i and a minor or, a resident of the premises who
is ineligible to possess a firearm under state or federal law or who poses a risk of
imminent personal injury to himself or herself or to other individuals, obtains the
firearm and causes the injury or death of such minor, resident or any other person. For
the purposes of this section, “minor” means any person under the age of sixteen years.

Thus, in order to charge under this section, the provisions of Connecticut General Statute 29-37i must
be examined. This act provides in part:

No person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premises under such person’s
control if such person knows or reasonably should know that (1) a minor is likely to gain
access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor, (2)
a resident of the premises is ineligible to possess a firearm under state or federal law, or
(3) a resident of the premises poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or
herself or to other individuals, unless such person (A) keeps the firearm in a securely
locked box or other container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe
to be secure, or (B) carries the firearm on his or her person or within such close
proximity thereto that such person can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if such
person carried the firearm on his or her person. For the purposes of this section, “minor”
means any person under the age of sixteen years.

Therefore, Connecticut law, unlike at least three other states, clearly requires that in order to
prosecute under CGS 53a-217a(a), the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon
was loaded when stored.

A person is guilty of Risk of Injury to a Minor under Connecticut General Statute 53-21(a)(1) when
he or she:

Wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be
placed in such a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, the health of
such child is likely to be injured or the morals of any such child are likely to be impaired.

Connecticut General Statute 53a-63 (a) states that a person is guilty of Reckless Endangerment in the
First Degree when such person acts with “extreme indifference to human life” and “recklessly
engages in conduct which creates a risk of serious physical injury.” Under Connecticut General
Statute 53a-64, a person is guilty of Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree when he
“Recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of physical injury to another person.”

Analysis

In reviewing the evidence in question, there is no evidence that the gun owner had stored the
handgun in a loaded state. Connecticut law, unlike the law in at least three other states, clearly
requires proof of this element. Thus, the gun owner cannot be charged under section 53a-217.

An analysis of the Risk of Injury Statute § 53-21 (a)(1), reveals that a person is guilty of risk of injury
if he “wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in
such a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, [or] the health of such child is likely
to be injured….” Conduct is wilful when it is “done purposefully and with knowledge of [its] likely
consequences.” (Internal quotation marks and footnote omitted.) State v. James E., 327 Conn. 212,
223 (2017). Pursuant to § 53-21 (a)(1), a person is guilty of risk of injury if he “wilfully or unlawfully
causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the life
or limb of such child is endangered, [or] the health of such child is likely to be injured….”

Pursuant to § 53a-64, a “person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when he
recklessly engages in conduct which causes a risk of physical injury to another person.” Pursuant to
§ 53a-3 (13), a “person acts ‘recklessly’ with respect to a result … described by a statute defining an
offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such
result … will occur…. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregarding it constitutes a
gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the
situation[.]”

Because the gun owner did not breach a legal responsibility regarding the storage of his guns, in order
to prove that he was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that
physical injury would occur, or in order to prove that he stored the guns purposefully and with
knowledge that the likely consequence would be the endangerment or a child, or that a child would
likely be injured, requires evidence that he knew or had reason to know that a juvenile was likely to
gain access to the guns without his permission. In this case, there is no evidence that the gun owner
knew that the juvenile had actual knowledge of where the guns were stored. However, even if this is
not true, and he was aware that the juvenile knew where and how the guns were stored, this again
could not support a prosecution since merely showing that a juvenile could gain such access is
insufficient.

Conclusion

The death of Ethan Song was a horrific and preventable tragedy. However, existing law does not
support a prosecution of the gun owner under any applicable statute. Two premises underlie this
belief: (1) The gun owner’s conduct in storing the guns did not itself violate the law, and (2) there is
a lack of evidence that he knew, or should have known, that a juvenile was likely to gain access to the
guns without his permission.

Due to confidentiality concerns involving the rights of juveniles, no comment will or can be made
regarding the potential culpability or actions of any minor child.

/s/
Maureen T. Platt
State’s Attorney
Judicial District of Waterbury