Skip to main content

State v. Daniels

Citations

  • 342 Conn. 538

Syllabus

A jury found the defendant guilty of intentional manslaughter in the first degree, reckless manslaughter in the first degree, and misconduct with a motor vehicle, among other crimes. The defendant had been driving her vehicle at a high rate of speed when she struck the driver's side of the victim's vehicle. The defendant then ran her vehicle into the victim's vehicle from behind, causing the victim's vehicle to strike a tree, which resulted in the victim's death. At the defendant's sentencing hearing, the state moved to vacate the defendant's intentional manslaughter conviction, citing to State v. Polanco (308 Conn. 242) and its progeny, in which this court held that the proper remedy for a double jeopardy violation arising out of cumulative convictions is to vacate one of the convictions rather than merging them. The trial court granted the state's motion and vacated the intentional manslaughter conviction for sentenc- ing purposes. The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Court, claiming, inter alia, that the jury's verdict of guilty of intentional manslaughter, reckless manslaughter, and miscon- duct with a motor vehicle, the latter of which involves the criminally negligent operation of a motor vehicle that causes the death of another person, was legally inconsistent because each of those crimes requires proof of a mutually exclusive mental state. The Appellate Court deter- mined that neither reckless manslaughter nor misconduct with a motor vehicle was inconsistent with intentional manslaughter but agreed that the defendant's conviction of reckless manslaughter and misconduct with a motor vehicle was legally inconsistent insofar as the defendant could not have consciously disregarded the risk of the victim's death while simultaneously failing to perceive that same risk of death. The Appellate Court rejected the state's argument that the proper remedy for the legal inconsistency was to remand the case with direction to reinstate th

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Keller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.