State v. Cox, (SC 16027)
| Decision Date | 19 October 1999 |
| Docket Number | (SC 16027) |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. FREDDIE COX, JR. |
McDonald, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Sullivan, JS. Tara L. Knight, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Richard F. Jacobson, special assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Cornelius P. Kelly, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
After a jury trial, the defendant, Freddie Cox, Jr., was convicted of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2).1 The defendant appealed his conviction, claiming that "(1) the state committed prosecutorial misconduct during the questioning of witnesses and during its closing argument, (2) the trial court made an improper statement to the jury thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial and (3) the trial court improperly charged the jury, sua sponte, on consciousness of guilt, which allowed the jury to infer flight on an inadequate factual basis." State v. Cox, 50 Conn. App. 175, 176-77, 718 A.2d 60 (1998). The Appellate Court rejected the defendant's arguments and affirmed his conviction. Id. We granted certification, limited to the following issues: (1) "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis for the trial court's instruction on flight or consciousness of guilt?" and (2) "If the answer to the first question is no, was the error harmful?" State v. Cox, 247 Conn. 928, 719 A.2d 1170 (1998).
Having examined the record on appeal, studied the briefs and heard the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court. See, e.g., Brennan v. Burger King Corp., 244 Conn. 204, 206, 707 A.2d 30 (1998); Murphy v. Buonato, 241 Conn. 319, 321-22, 696 A.2d 320 (1997).
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
1. General Statutes § 53a-60 provides in relevant part: "(a) A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when ... (2) with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument other than by means of the discharge of a firearm ...."
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Abraham
...constitutional magnitude." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cox, 50 Conn. App. 175, 180, 718 A.2d 60 (1998), aff d, 251 Conn. 54, 738 A.2d 652 (1999). Accordingly, we decline to review this The judgment in the second case is reversed only as to the conviction of conspiracy to co......
-
State v. Hicks
...regard those remarks ... as seriously prejudicial at trial." State v. Cox, 50 Conn. App. 175, 180, 718 A.2d 60 (1998), aff d, 251 Conn. 54, 738 A.2d 652 (1999). ...
-
State v. Eason, No. 30420.
...112 (1991). The jury is ever watchful of the judge's words; State v. Cox, 50 Conn.App. 175, 182, 718 A.2d 60 (1998), aff'd, 251 Conn. 54, 738 A.2d 652 (1999); and has "a natural tendency to look to the trial judge for guidance, and may find it even where it is not intended." (Internal quota......
-
Dill v. State
...728 So.2d 1126 (Ala.1998) (flight instruction proper); State v. Thornton, 187 Ariz. 325, 929 P.2d 676 (1996) (same); State v. Cox, 251 Conn. 54, 738 A.2d 652 (1999) (evidence adequate to warrant flight instruction); Tavares v. State, 725 So.2d 803, 806 (Miss. 1998) ("this Court held that a ......