State v. Sotomayor

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Sotomayor

770 A.2d 32, 255 Conn. 952, 2001 Conn. LEXIS 101

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedMarch 22, 2001

DocketSC 16495

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 770 A.2d 32 (State v. Sotomayor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Sotomayor, 770 A.2d 32, 255 Conn. 952, 2001 Conn. LEXIS 101 (Colo. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 61 Conn. App. 364 (AC 20518), is granted, limited to the following issue:

[953]*953The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16495. Jeremiah Donovan, in support of the petition. Susann E. Gill, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided March 22, 2001

“Was it harmful error for the trial court to instruct the jury that ‘[o]ne who uses a deadly weapon upon the vital parts of another will be deemed to have intended the probable result of that act,’ to repeat the instruction in response to an inquiry from the jury, and to decline to instruct the jury that use of a deadly weapon could evince an extreme indifference to human life (an element of manslaughter in the first degree) rather than an intent to kill?”

VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

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

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 61 Conn. App. 364 (AC 20518), is granted, limited to the following issue:

[953]*953The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16495. Jeremiah Donovan, in support of the petition. Susann E. Gill, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided March 22, 2001

“Was it harmful error for the trial court to instruct the jury that ‘[o]ne who uses a deadly weapon upon the vital parts of another will be deemed to have intended the probable result of that act,’ to repeat the instruction in response to an inquiry from the jury, and to decline to instruct the jury that use of a deadly weapon could evince an extreme indifference to human life (an element of manslaughter in the first degree) rather than an intent to kill?”

VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

770 A.2d 32, 255 Conn. 952, 2001 Conn. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sotomayor-conn-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack