Skip to main content

State v. King

Citations

  • 350 Conn. 303

Syllabus

The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction of murder as an accessory and conspiracy to commit murder. The defendant, who had waived her right to a jury trial and elected to be tried by a three judge panel pursuant to statute (§§ 53a-45 (b) and 54-82 (b)), claimed, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment of conviction and that her jury trial waiver was not made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily because the canvassing court improperly had failed to explain to her that the three judge panel did not need to be unanimous to convict. Held: The evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of murder as an accessory and conspiracy to commit murder. The fact that the defendant's alleged accomplices and/or coconspirators had not been charged in connection with the victim's homicide did not inherently cast doubt on the sufficiency of the evidence against the defendant. This court invoked its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to require that a canvassing court specifically advise a defendant who elects to waive his or her right to a jury trial and to be tried by a three judge panel that, unlike with a twelve member jury, which must reach a unanimous verdict in order for a defendant to be convicted, a three judge panel need not be unanimous and that only two members of the three judge panel need to agree for a conviction. The court concluded that this new rule should apply to the defendant's case and that fairness and justice demanded that it reverse the defendant's conviction and order a new trial. Even if this court assumed that the three judge panel in the present case engaged in deliberations before the close of evidence and the submission of the case to the panel, a three judge panel, unlike a jury, is not constitutionally prohibited from beginning its deliberations prior to the close of evidence. Argued December 20, 2023—officially released August 8, 2024 August 8, 2024, the date that thi

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Dannehy; Bozzuto

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

56 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.