Skip to main content

State v. Angel M.

Citations

  • 337 Conn. 655

Syllabus

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree, attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree, and risk of injury to a child in connection with his alleged sexual abuse of V, the twelve year old victim. The defendant had become romantically involved with M, V's mother, when V was approximately three to four years old. After M and the defendant had a child, A, together, the defendant moved into a house with M, V and A, whom the defendant also allegedly abused sexually at a later point. At trial, the defendant testified that he had never touched V or A in a sexually inappropriate manner and claimed that V and A fabricated their allegations of sexual abuse in retaliation for the defen- dant's act of hitting M and having withdrawn all financial support for the family after moving out of the house. At his sentencing hearing, the defendant engaged in a colloquy with the court during which he contin- ued to deny his guilt. The court indicated to the defendant during the colloquy that taking responsibility for his misconduct and apologizing would help V and A but that it was the defendant's right to continue to deny his guilt in the event that he appealed his conviction. The court stated further that it would ''not punish [him] for'' continuing to deny his guilt but that he would ''not get any extra credit.'' After the court sentenced the defendant to a significant period of imprisonment fol- lowed by a significant period of probation, he appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had violated his right to due process by improperly augmenting his sentence for his refusal to apologize to V and A after he had been found guilty of the crimes charged in connection with his sexual assault of V. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, concluding, inter alia, that a sentencing court properly may consider a defendant's lack of remorse in fashioning In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy int

Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Kahn; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

57 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.