State v. Santana

874 A.2d 257, 89 Conn. App. 553, 2005 Conn. App. LEXIS 231
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedJune 14, 2005
DocketAC 25453
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 874 A.2d 257 (State v. Santana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Santana, 874 A.2d 257, 89 Conn. App. 553, 2005 Conn. App. LEXIS 231 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Opinion

BISHOP, J.

The defendant, Javier Santana, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c,1 attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-134 (a) (2),2 unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95,3 robbery in the first degree [555]*555in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (2),4 and larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-119 and 53a-124 (a) (2).5 On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court’s jury instruction regarding felony murder was ambiguous and allowed the jury to find him guilty even if a police officer, and not a participant in the robbery, had fired the gunshots that resulted in the victim’s death.

The defendant and Gary Cooke were charged in a fifty-six count substitute information with felony murder, robbery in the first degree, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, larceny in the third degree and unlawful restraint in the first degree on the basis of their robbery of guests at a garage party on November 30, 2001, and the resultant death of one individual. The two cases were consolidated and tried jointly before a twelve person jury. The jury found the defendant and Cooke guilty as charged, and both men appealed.

The claim that the defendant makes in his appeal was raised by Cooke and, in an opinion released on the same date, has been rejected by this court. See State v. Cooke, 89 Conn. App. 530, 874 A.2d 805 (2005).

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Harrington v. United States
689 F.3d 124 (Second Circuit, 2012)
State v. Santana
883 A.2d 1251 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
874 A.2d 257, 89 Conn. App. 553, 2005 Conn. App. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-santana-connappct-2005.