Skakel v. State, 18158.
Citation | 295 Conn. 447,991 A.2d 414 |
Decision Date | 20 April 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 18158.,18158. |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Parties | Michael C. SKAKEL v. STATE of Connecticut. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Hubert J. Santos, with whom were Hope C. Seeley and Benjamin B. Adams, Hartford, for the appellant (petitioner).
Susann E. Gill, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom was Jonathan C. Benedict, former state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
KATZ, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and McLACHLAN, Js.*
Following his 2002 conviction, after a jury trial, for the 1975 murder of his fifteen year old neighbor, Martha Moxley (victim), the petitioner, Michael C. Skakel, appealed.1 In accordance with the three year limitations period under General Statutes § 52-582,2 in 2005, while a decision on that appeal was pending, the petitioner filed a petition for a new trial, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-270(a),3 on the ground of newly discovered evidence. This court thereafter affirmed the judgment of conviction. See State v. Skakel, 276 Conn. 633, 888 A.2d 985, cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1030, 127 S.Ct. 578, 166 L.Ed.2d 428 (2006).4 The trial court, Karazin, J., subsequently denied the petitioner's revised substitute petition for a new trial (petition), and this appeal followed.5 The petitioner contends that the trial court improperly concluded that his third party culpability, exculpatory and impeachment evidence was either not newly discovered, not credible or not likely to produce a different result in a new trial even if credible. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the petitioner had not satisfied the prerequisites for a new trial, and, accordingly, we affirm its judgment denying the petition.
The following facts that the jury reasonably could have found on the basis of evidence adduced at the petitioner's criminal trial, as well as the theories the petitioner raised in his defense at trial, were set forth in great detail by this court in our resolution of the petitioner's appeal from the judgment of conviction. The unusual circumstances of this case, its lengthy history, the number of persons involved, the nature of the claims in this appeal and the standard of review applied to claims of newly discovered evidence necessitate their repeating. "Sometime between 6:30 and 7:30 p.m. on the evening of Thursday, October 30, 1975, the victim left her home on Walsh Lane, located in the Belle Haven section of the town of Greenwich, with a friend, Helen Ix, to play and socialize in and around the neighborhood. It was the night before Halloween, commonly referred to as `mischief night,' an evening when the neighborhood children were known to engage in playful mischief. The victim and Ix soon were accompanied by other friends who lived nearby. Several times that night, the group stopped by the Skakel home, which was located on Otter Rock Drive.6 The first time they did so, the petitioner was dining at the Belle Haven Club with his siblings, Rushton Skakel, Jr., Julie Skakel, Thomas Skakel, John Skakel, David Skakel and Stephen Skakel, their cousin James Dowdle,7 their tutor Kenneth Littleton, and Julie Skakel's friend Andrea Shakespeare. The Skakel group arrived home from dinner before 9 p.m., at which time the victim and her friends again visited the petitioner's house.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lapointe v. Comm'r of Corr.
...fact when the trier of fact has made credibility findings after receiving and weighing the evidence. See, e.g., Skakel v. State, 295 Conn. 447, 487 n.25, 991 A.2d 414 (2010) ("[t]his court . . . squarely has rejected the proposition that a less deferential standard than abuse of discretion ......
-
Jones v. State
...(Citation omitted; emphasis in original.) Lombardo v. State , 172 Conn. 385, 391, 374 A.2d 1065 (1977) ; see also Skakel v. State , 295 Conn. 447, 468, 991 A.2d 414 (2010). This analysis requires the trial court hearing the petition to weigh the impact the new evidence might have on the ori......
-
Mitchell v. State
...should not be disturbed by posttrial motions except for a compelling reason." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Skakel v. State, 295 Conn. 447, 467, 991 A.2d 414 (2010). In his petition for a new trial, the petitioner alleged that there was newly discovered evidence in the form of (1) tec......
-
Lopez v. Comm'r of Corr.
..."permit the defense to close its eyes to information likely to lead to the discovery of [exculpatory] evidence." Skakel v. State , 295 Conn. 447, 521, 991 A.2d 414 (2010). The court holds that the state satisfied its constitutional duties under Brady by providing to the defense the list of ......