Skip to main content

State v. Tinsley

Citations

  • 340 Conn. 425

Syllabus

The defendant, who had been convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and risk of injury to a child, appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant's conviction stemmed from an incident that occurred while he was watching the victim, a fifteen month old, when the victim's mother was at work. The defendant had alerted the victim's mother that something was wrong with the victim and picked her up from her place of employment. While the three of them were driving to the hospital, they were involved in a motor vehicle accident. The victim died at the hospital, and an autopsy revealed bruises on his cheek, one of his legs, and his chest, which occurred shortly before his death, and internal abdominal injuries, including a broken rib and a lacerated liver, the latter of which was determined to be the cause of the victim's death. Although the defendant ultimately was convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree, the operative information had charged him with capital felony, alleging in relevant part that the defendant, ''with the intent to cause the death of [the victim], caused the death of [the victim] . . . by blunt trauma to the abdomen.'' As to the risk of injury charge, the information alleged in relevant part that the defendant ''did an act likely to impair the health of [the victim] . . . by inflicting multiple trauma to his face, head, chest, and abdomen and thereby causing: laceration of the liver, internal bleeding in the abdomen, fracture of the tenth right rib, and multiple contusions of the face, head, chest, and abdomen.'' In his motion to correct, the defendant claimed that his sentence imposed for manslaughter in the first degree and risk of injury to a child violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to correct. The Appellate Court determined tha

How courts have described this case

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

  • one offense is not lesser included offense of another if it is possible to commit alleged greater crime without committing alleged lesser crime
  • ‘‘[b]ecause the United States Supreme Court has declined to con- sider facts alleged in the information when conducting a Blockburger analysis, we decline to import that con- sideration into the double jeopardy analysis’’
  • risk of injury to child, in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1995

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

27 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.