State v. Henderson
Citations
- 348 Conn. 648
Syllabus
Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crime of home invasion in connection with an incident in which the defendant and another man kicked down the door to the victim's apartment, physically assaulted the victim, and stole some of his belongings, the defendant appealed to this court. After closing arguments, the trial court instructed the jury on home invasion, the other offenses with which the defendant had been charged, including burglary in the first degree, and certain lesser included offenses, includ- ing burglary in the third degree as a lesser included offense of burglary in the first degree. The jury did not reach a verdict after the first day of deliberations. Before the second day of deliberations began, however, the defendant was exposed to COVID-19, which he eventually con- tracted. As a result, jury deliberations were delayed for twenty-five days. During that time, two jurors became unavailable for the rescheduled proceedings and were replaced by alternate jurors. When the proceed- 348 Conn. 648 MARCH, 2024 649 State v. Henderson ings resumed, the court instructed that the remaining members of the original jury were to disregard their earlier deliberations and that the jury was to begin deliberations anew. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of home invasion but not guilty of the other charges and the lesser included offenses. Defense counsel indicated that he had no objections to the verdict, which the court accepted. Defense counsel then moved for a mistrial, claiming that the defendant was prejudiced by the twenty-five day interruption in the jury deliberations. The court denied the motion and rendered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict. On the defendant's appeal from the judgment of conviction, held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that this court should reverse his conviction of home invasion or grant him a new trial on that charge because the jury's verdicts of guilty of home invasion and
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. HaynesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-07-01· cited 10×
- State v. HintonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-06-24· cited 6×
- State v. DixonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-09-16· cited 5×
- State v. BoltonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-07-22· cited 2×
- State v. KingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-08-08· cited 1×
Cites
22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- United States v. PowellSupreme Court· 1984-12-10· cited 2,102×
- Dunn v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1932-01-11· cited 1,678×
- State v. SalamonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-07-01· cited 243×
- Steckler v. United StatesSecond Circuit· 1925-04-06· cited 191×
- State v. PeelerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-10-12· cited 157×
- State v. HintonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-08-24· cited 156×
- Bravo-Fernandez v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2016-11-29· cited 119×
- State v. KingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-12-11· cited 108×
- State v. DecaroSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-02-29· cited 92×
- State v. MyersSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-02-03· cited 64×
- State v. ArroyoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-07-21· cited 63×
- State v. RosadoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1979-08-28· cited 58×
- State v. HolleySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-01-12· cited 51×
- R.A. Ponte Architects, Ltd. v. Investors' Alert, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2004-08-26· cited 40×
- Givens v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2016-08-22· cited 26×
- State v. KnightSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-12-09· cited 26×
- State v. GastonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-02-04· cited 23×
- State v. ColonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-08-14· cited 23×
- State v. AndersonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-03-02· cited 15×
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.