State v. Watson
Citations
- 339 Conn. 452
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute ((Rev. to 2015) § 53a-64bb (b)), ''[n]o person shall be found guilty of strangulation in the second degree and unlawful restraint or assault upon the same incident . . . .'' Convicted of assault in the third degree, unlawful restraint in the first degree, strangulation in the second degree, and threatening in the second degree, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court. The defendant and the victim had been socializing and drinking together in an apartment build- ing in which the defendant lived. When the victim indicated that she need to go to the bathroom, the defendant told her that he could use his bathroom. When the victim finished using the bathroom, the defendant prevented her from leaving, restrained her and, over the course of eight or nine hours, alternated between hitting and choking her in various areas of his apartment. After the jury returned its verdict, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the assault and unlawful restraint charges on the ground that they were ''upon the same incident'' as the strangulation charge for purposes of § 53a-64bb (b). The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to sup- port the jury's verdict because the incident occurred over an extended period of time and the acts of assault and unlawful restraint were readily arose out of her employment as a matter of law and she is entitled to workers' compensation.''). 339 Conn. 452 NOVEMBER, 2021 453 State v. Watson separable from the acts of strangulation. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, and the defendant, on the granting of certifi- cation, appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the language in § 53a-64bb (b) prohibiting a person from being found guilty of strangula- tion in the second degree ''upon the same incident'' as unlawful restraint or assault is an element of the offense of strangulation that must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than by the t
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Vertefeuille
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court· 2000-06-26· cited 28,372×
- United States v. BookerSupreme Court· 2004-10-01· cited 23,210×
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2004-06-24· cited 13,994×
- Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1998-03-24· cited 12,622×
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court· 1970-05-18· cited 11,712×
- Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1931-12-11· cited 10,676×
- Alleyne v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2013-06-17· cited 5,868×
- Mullaney v. WilburSupreme Court· 1975-06-09· cited 3,396×
- Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1952-01-07· cited 3,056×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- Cunningham v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 2007-01-22· cited 1,474×
- Oregon v. IceSupreme Court· 2009-01-14· cited 683×
- United States v. HaymondSupreme Court· 2019-06-26· cited 398×
- Sattazahn v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 2003-01-14· cited 379×
- United States v. ApfelbaumSupreme Court· 1980-03-03· cited 352×
- State v. GrecoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-08-14· cited 85×
- State v. KirschSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-05-06· cited 58×
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-08-21· cited 38×
- State v. ButlerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-12-17· cited 30×
- State v. QuintConnecticut Appellate Court· 2006-08-15· cited 16×
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.