Skip to main content

State v. Silva

Citations

  • 339 Conn. 598

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute (§ 53a-54b (7)), a person is guilty of murder with special circumstances when such person is convicted of ''murder of two or more persons at the same time or in the course of a single transaction'' and was eighteen years of age or older at the time of the offense. Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crime of murder with special circum- stances in connection with the shooting deaths of A and J, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had incor- 339 Conn. 598 NOVEMBER, 2021 599 State v. Silva rectly instructed the jury on the ''in the course of a single transaction'' element of murder with special circumstances, thereby relieving the state of its burden of proving that element beyond a reasonable doubt. On the night of the murders, the defendant, along with passengers O and R, drove around in the defendant's car looking for J, with whom the defendant had a feud. Upon finding J sitting in the driver's seat of A's car, the defendant stopped, exited his car, and walked toward J, who had exited A's car. When the defendant reached J, he shot him two times and then walked to A's car and fired multiple shots at A, who was seated in the front passenger seat. The operative information charged the defendant with having committed the murders in the course of a single transaction but not at the same time. At trial, the defendant presented a third-party culpability defense implicating O in the murders. Specifically, defense counsel argued during closing argument that only O had the motive, means and opportunity to murder A and J. The trial court instructed the jury, with respect to the ''in the course of a single transaction'' element of murder with special circumstances, that, to prove that element, the state was required to establish beyond a reason- able doubt either that there was a temporal nexus between the murders of A and J or that there was a plan, motive, or intent common to both murders. Defense counsel did

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • ‘‘[c]losing argument is an integral part of any criminal trial, for it is in this phase that the issues are sharpened and clarified for the jury and each party may present his theory of the case’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • claim of plain error fails when claim fails under third prong of Golding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

21 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.