Skip to main content

State v. Torres

Citations

  • 343 Conn. 208

Syllabus

Convicted of the crimes of murder and carrying a pistol without a permit in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant, P, and L had been socializing with M, the defendant's cousin, and the defendant's sister in an apartment. L called the victim and asked him for a ride. The victim parked his car outside of a pharmacy across the street from the apartment and went inside of the pharmacy. The defendant, P, and L got into the victim's car while the victim was inside the pharmacy. The victim returned to his car and initially did not notice the defendant in the rear seat behind This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices McDonald, D'Auria, Kahn, and Ecker. Thereafter, Justices Mullins and Keller were added to the panel and have read the briefs and appendices, and listened to a recording of the oral argument prior to participating in this decision. 343 Conn. 208 MAY, 2022 209 State v. Torres the driver's seat. After the victim drove to a drive-through at a fast food restaurant, the victim noticed that the defendant was in the car and told him to get out. When the defendant refused, the victim got out and walked around the car to the passenger's side in order to retrieve a baseball bat. In response, the defendant exited the car, walked around the rear of the car toward the passenger's side, and fatally shot the victim. On appeal from the judgment of conviction, the Appellate Court reversed the defendant's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. At the defendant's second trial, M testified, in an offer of proof outside the presence of the jury, that, immediately before the defendant's first trial, she encountered P in the courthouse, and P called M a ''snitch'' and threatened her. M then testified that, two days later, P's sister and two other individuals had assaulted her. The trial court denied the state's motion in limine

How courts have described this case

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

  • ‘‘[i]n order to determine whether a defendant’s constitutional right to cross-examination has been satisfied, [w]e consider . . . whether the field of inquiry was adequately cov- ered by other questions that were allowed’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)

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

28 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.