State v. Lopez
Citations
- 341 Conn. 793
Syllabus
The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation. The defendant previously had been convicted of two felony offenses and received a suspended sentence and five years of probation. The conditions of the defendant's probation prohibited him from vio- lating any state or federal criminal law and from possessing any ''fire- arm,'' as that term was defined by statute (§ 53a-3 (19)). While the defendant was serving his term of probation, he was arrested and charged with criminal possession of a firearm after the police found an airsoft pellet gun in his residence while executing a search warrant. In light of that arrest, the defendant was charged with violating the condi- tions of his probation. The court held an evidentiary hearing, at which a detective, W, testified that the airsoft pellet gun functioned as intended by its manufacturer in that it used air to push round, plastic projectiles out of the barrel. In response to a question from the court, however, W could not say whether it was capable of discharging a projectile with enough velocity to ''put a person's eye out.'' At the close of evidence, defense counsel moved for, inter alia, a finding of no violation of proba- tion, claiming that the state had failed to establish that the airsoft pellet gun was a firearm within the meaning of § 53a-3 (19), which defines ''firearm'' in relevant part as ''any . . . weapon . . . from which a shot may be discharged . . . .'' The court denied that motion and, instead, found that the airsoft pellet gun was a firearm under § 53a-3 (19) because it was capable of discharging a shot, namely, a six millimeter pellet. Accordingly, the court concluded that the defendant had violated the conditions of his probation prohibiting him from violating the law and possessing a firearm, and rendered judgment revoking the defendant's probation, from which the defendant appealed. Held that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's factual finding
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- trial court’s factual finding that airsoft gun was ‘‘firearm’’ as defined by General Statutes § 53a-3 (19
- ‘‘[w]e have pre- viously construed the meaning of the [statutory] phrase . . . and are guided by that precedent’’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. BrandonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-12-30· cited 9×
- State v. AresSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-11-22· cited 6×
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-08-12· cited 3×
- Commissioner of Mental Health & Addiction Services v. Freedom of Information CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-08-29
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. Maurice M.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-11-29· cited 23×
- State v. CoauetteCourt of Appeals of Minnesota· 1999-09-28· cited 15×
- State v. HartConnecticut Appellate Court· 2010-01-12· cited 12×
- State v. HardySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-05-09· cited 11×
- State v. GrantSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-11-10· cited 10×
- State v. GuzmanConnecticut Appellate Court· 2008-09-16· cited 9×
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.