Skip to main content

State v. Robles

Citations

  • 348 Conn. 1

Syllabus

Convicted, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm and, after a trial to the court, of criminal possession of a firearm and illegal possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant had walked over to a parked car in which the victim was sitting in the driver's seat. While the driver's side window was down, the defendant began speaking to the victim and pulled out a handgun. The defendant then leaned into the car and fired a gunshot. The victim ultimately died from injuries she sustained as a result of a gunshot wound to her chest. During the defendant's trial, the prosecutor and defense counsel submitted a stipulation to the trial court, which indicated that the defendant previously had been convicted of two felon- ies unrelated to the charges in the present case. The court acknowledged that the stipulation was being admitted only for purposes of ''count two,'' namely, the charge of criminal possession of a firearm. The court admitted the stipulation into evidence, stating that it would be a full exhibit ''for purposes of the court trial,'' which pertained to both of the weapons charges. In addition, the state's chief medical examiner, G, testified about photographs from the victim's autopsy, which G had not performed, and about an autopsy report that G had reviewed before trial but that previously had been prepared by a former assistant medical examiner. On appeal from the judgment of conviction, held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that the trial court had violated his constitutional right to confrontation by allowing G to testify about the autopsy photographs and autopsy report: 1 2 SEPTEMBER, 2023 348 Conn. 1 State v. Robles G testified, on the basis of his personal knowledge and experience, that the autopsy photographs indicated that the victim had been shot at close range, and, because this portion of G's testimony was based solely on his examination of th

Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Seeley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

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.