State v. Ferdinand R.
Decision Date | 17 December 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 18918.,18918. |
Citation | 310 Conn. 686,82 A.3d 599 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. FERDINAND R. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Martin Zeldis, public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Nancy L. Chupak, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were David I. Cohen, state's attorney, and Maureen Ornousky, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH and McDONALD, Js.
The defendant, Ferdinand R., appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in a spousal relationship in violation of General Statutes § 53a–70b.1 On appeal, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that § 53a–70b requires the defendant to have only a general intent to commit the act that constituted a violation of the statute. We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The relevant facts and procedural history giving rise to this appeal are set forth in the decision of the Appellate Court. “After a few weeks of dating, the defendant married the victim on April 13, 2007.... At the time of the marriage, the victim worked as a live-in housekeeper in New York City. This required her to be in New York Monday through Friday, and occasionallyon weekends. Typically, however, the victim spent weekends with the defendant at his apartment [in the city of Stamford]. At the end of her work week, the victim would travel by train from New York to Connecticut, and the defendant would pick her up at the [local] train station. During the week, the two would talk to each other on the telephone almost every day. On July 15, 2007, the victim's employment contract ended, and she began working for a new employer in New York City on July 16, 2007. She also moved in with the defendant.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Juan C.
...controls our analysis here.The state further relies on State v. Ferdinand R. , 132 Conn.App. 594, 33 A.3d 793 (2011), aff'd, 310 Conn. 686, 82 A.3d 599 (2013), for the proposition that the "use of force" element of § 53a–70 (a) can be satisfied by demonstrating those acts that are necessary......
-
State v. Battle
...also to the broader statutory scheme to ensure the coherency of our construction" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), aff'd, 310 Conn. 686, 82 A.3d 599 (2013) ; see generally Tomlinson v. Tomlinson , 305 Conn. 539, 552, 46 A.3d 112 (2012). We, therefore, also must consider § 53a-28,8 whic......
-
Olson v. Mohammadu
... ... Barros , 309 Conn. 499, 503 n.4, 72 A.3d 367 (2013) (claim deemed abandoned for inadequate briefing); State v. Weston , 164 Conn. 635, 636, 325 A.2d 457 (1973) (claim not briefed on appeal, although argued during oral argument, treated as abandoned); ... ...
-
Simms v. Zucco
...for modification." (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; see also Olson v. Mohammadu , supra, 310 Conn. at 686 n.16, 81 A.3d 215.In the present case, the court did not abuse its discretion by increasing the defendant's alimony obligation and orderi......