State v. Joseph V.
Citations
- 345 Conn. 516
Syllabus
A criminal information is duplicitous when it charges a defendant in a single count with two or more distinct and separate criminal offenses, thereby implicating the defendant's constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict. In the companion case of State v. Douglas C. (345 Conn. 421), this court recognized that a duplicitous information may raise two distinct and separate kinds of issues regarding a defendant's right to jury unanimity: unanimity as to the elements of a crime, which arises when a defendant is charged in a single count with having violated multiple statutory provisions, subsections, or clauses, requiring the court to determine whether the statutory provisions, subsections, or clauses constitute sep- arate elements of the statute, thereby requiring jury unanimity, or alterna- tive means of committing a single element, which do not require jury unanimity; and unanimity as to instances of conduct, which arises when a defendant is charged in a single count with having violated a single statutory provision, subsection, or clause on multiple, separate occasions. Convicted of the crimes of sexual assault in the first degree, risk of injury to a child, and conspiracy to commit risk of injury to a child in connection with his sexual abuse of the victim, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court. T, the victim's half brother, began sexually abusing the victim when the victim was four or five years old. In 2006, T moved to a new residence with his and the victim's father, where the victim would periodically have overnight visits. T's sexual abuse of the victim continued at the father's residence. The defendant, who is a first cousin of the victim and T, also began to sexually abuse the victim at that time. The defendant and T often abused the victim simultaneously, and the In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of victims of the crime of risk of injury to a child, we decline to use the defendant's full name or to identify the v
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- in construing statutory language, courts are bound by prior judicial interpretations and purpose of statute
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
71 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×
- Schad v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1991-09-13· cited 1,454×
- Richardson v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1999-06-01· cited 913×
- People v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1990-06-28· cited 835×
- United States v. Franklin Delano GipsonFifth Circuit· 1977-06-06· cited 381×
- State v. ArceoHawaii Supreme Court· 1996-11-18· cited 364×
- State v. HayesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1941-03-04· cited 172×
- Commonwealth v. KingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1982-10-13· cited 166×
- Williams v. ArmontroutSupreme Court· 1990-02-20· cited 161×
- State v. SpigaroloSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-03-14· cited 159×
- The United States v. James Beros, Titus McCue A/K/A Tim McCune Appeal of James M. BerosThird Circuit· 1987-11-10· cited 131×
- State v. VoylesSupreme Court of Kansas· 2007-06-22· cited 118×
- Bop-Nin Chow v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1989-07-03· cited 115×
- United States v. Joseph M. MargiottaSecond Circuit· 1981-04-10· cited 114×
- United States v. Jerry Don HolleyFifth Circuit· 1991-09-13· cited 108×
- United States v. Amy GonzalezThird Circuit· 2018-09-07· cited 108×
- State v. HauckSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1976-12-28· cited 99×
- State v. OrtizSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-03-17· cited 98×
- Gilson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 2000-07-26· cited 96×
- State v. AltgilbersNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1989-12-07· cited 96×
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.