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 CourtListenerCited 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.
- Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court· 1927-03-14· cited 2,714×
- Ramos v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 2020-04-20· cited 248×
- State v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-06-03· cited 248×
- Campfield v. Stickman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at GreeneSupreme Court· 2004-03-08· cited 186×
- State v. CobbSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-12-07· cited 167×
- State v. PinnockSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-01-14· cited 150×
- Choice v. GoordSupreme Court· 2000-10-02· cited 119×
- State v. NewsomeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-08-06· cited 111×
- State v. DavisOhio Supreme Court· 1992-02-19· cited 101×
- State v. PattersonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-12-20· cited 95×
- State v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-05-18· cited 94×
- State v. CrespoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-09-01· cited 92×
- Richardson v. WestSupreme Court· 1999-01-25· cited 90×
- State v. HaffordSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-03-07· cited 89×
- State v. CastonguaySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-09-04· cited 74×
- State v. GoreSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-09-23· cited 70×
- State v. WashingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-07-01· cited 70×
- State v. MarinoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1983-07-12· cited 67×
- Escarino-Carrillo v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2000-10-02· cited 67×
- State v. ConnorSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-07-14· cited 66×
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.