State v. Peeler
Decision Date | 26 May 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 18125.,18125. |
Citation | State v. Peeler, 321 Conn. 375, 140 A.3d 811 (Conn. 2016) |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Russell PEELER. |
Mark Rademacher, assistant public defender, with whom was Lisa J. Steele, for the appellant(defendant).
Harry Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Kevin T. Kane, chief state's attorney, John C. Smriga, state's attorney, Jonathan Benedict, former state's attorney, Susan C. Marks, supervisory assistant state's attorney, Marjorie Allen Dauster and Joseph Corradino, senior assistant state's attorneys, and Matthew A. Weiner, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee(state).
ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH, McDONALD, ESPINOSA and ROBINSON, Js.
A jury found the defendant, Russell Peeler, guilty of, among other things, one count of capital felony in violation of General Statutes(Rev. to 1999)§ 53a–54b (8) and one count of capital felony in violation of General Statutes(Rev. to 1999)§ 53a–54b (9) in connection with the 1999 shooting deaths of a woman and her young son, and, following a capital sentencing hearing, the trial court, Devlin, J., rendered judgment imposing two death sentences.1This appeal of the defendant's death sentences is controlled by State v. Santiago,318 Conn. 1, 122 A.3d 1(2015), in which a majority of this court concluded that, following the enactment of No. 12–5 of the 2012 Public Acts (P.A. 12–5), executing offenders who committed capital crimes prior to the enactment of P.A. 12–5 would offend article first, §§ 8and9, of the Connecticut constitution.See, e.g., Conway v. Wilton,238 Conn. 653, 658–62, 680 A.2d 242(1996)( ).Our conclusion that the defendant's death sentences must be vacated as unconstitutional in light of Santiago renders moot the defendant's other appellate claims.
The judgment is reversed with respect to the imposition of two sentences of death and the case is remanded with direction to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release on each capital felony count; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
In this opinion ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, EVELEIGH, McDONALD and ROBINSON, Js., concurred.
Just as my personal beliefs cannot drive my decision-making, I feel bound by the doctrine of stare decisis in this case for one simple reason—my respect for the rule of law.To reverse an important constitutional issue within a period of less than one year solely because of a change injustices on the panel that is charged with deciding the issue, in my opinion, would raise legitimate concerns by the peoplewe serve about the court's integrity and the rule of law in the state of Connecticut.
Having carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, I am not persuaded by the state's contention that principles of stare decisis should not control the outcome of this case.Although I agree that (Internal quotation marks omitted.)Patterson v. McLean Credit Union,491 U.S. 164, 172, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 105 L.Ed.2d 132(1989).(Citation omitted.)Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,505 U.S. 833, 854, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674(1992);see alsoGeorge v. Ericson,250 Conn. 312, 318, 736 A.2d 889(1999)(.
“While stare decisis is not an inexorable command ... particularly when we are interpreting the [c]onstitution ... even in constitutional cases, the doctrine carries such persuasive force that we have always required a departure from precedent to be supported by some special justification.”(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)Dickerson v. United States,530 U.S. 428, 443, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405(2000).“Such justifications include the advent of subsequent changes or development in the law that undermine a decision's rationale ... the need to bring [a decision] into agreement with experience and with facts newly ascertained ... and a showing that a particular precedent has become a detriment to coherence and consistency in the law....”(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)Payne v. Tennessee,501 U.S. 808, 849, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720(1991)(Marshall, J., dissenting).
When neither the factual underpinnings of the prior decision nor the law has changed, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,supra, 505 U.S. at 864, 112 S.Ct. 2791.
I cannot identify any change or development in the law since the decision in State v. Santiago,318 Conn. 1, 122 A.3d 1(2015), was issued or any new experiences or facts that have come to light.Because there also has been no showing that the substance of the opinion has or will become a detriment to coherence and consistency in the law, applying the doctrine of stare decisis is appropriate.Moreover, although the state has now had an opportunity to present new arguments in the present case that it had no reason to present in Santiago because it was not on notice that this court would consider them, the three members of the current court who were in the majority in that case have rejected those arguments on the merits and the fourth member of the majority in Santiago, Justice Norcott, had for many years before that decision expressed his view that the death penalty is unconstitutional per se.See, e.g., State v. Rizzo,303 Conn. 71, 203, 31 A.3d 1094(2011)(Norcott, J., dissenting)(, )cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 133, 184 L.Ed.2d 64(2012).Accordingly, it is clear that, if these issues had been raised and briefed in Santiago, the result would have been no different.In fact, the only change that has occurred is a change in the makeup of this court, which occurred after oral argument in Santiago but before the decision was released.I strongly believe that, in and of itself, a change in the membership of this court within a relatively short period of time cannot justify a departure from the basic principle of stare decisis, especially on an issue of such great public importance.1
SeePayne v. Tennessee,supra, 501 U.S. at 850, 111 S.Ct. 2597(Marshall, J., dissenting)( );Taylor v. Robinson,196 Conn. 572, 578, 494 A.2d 1195(1985)(Peters, C.J., concurring)(), appeal dismissed, 475 U.S. 1002, 106 S.Ct. 1172, 89 L.Ed.2d 291(1986);Tileston v. Ullman,129 Conn. 84, 86, 26 A.2d 582(1942)(), appeal dismissed, 318 U.S. 44, 63 S.Ct. 493, 87 L.Ed. 603(1943).Any other conclusion would send the message that, whenever there is a hotly contested issue in this court that results in a closely divided decision, anyone who disagrees with the decision and has standing to challenge it need only wait until a member of the original majority leaves the court to mount another assault.In my view, that would be a very dangerous message to send.SeePlanned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,supra, 505 U.S. at 854, 112 S.Ct. 2791();Wheatfall v. State,882 S.W.2d 829, 843(Tex.Crim.App.1994)...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Ashby
...resentenced to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of release on those charges. See, e.g., State v. Peeler , 321 Conn. 375, 377, 140 A.3d 811 (2016) ; State v. Santiago , 318 Conn. 1, 85–86, 122 A.3d 1 (2015).8 A defendant's right to counsel under the sixth amendment is made......
-
State v. Campbell
...claims of error in the penalty phase of the proceedings should not be dismissed as moot in light of [ Santiago ] and State v. Peeler , 321 Conn. 375, (2016)." The defendant claims that the penalty phase issues are not moot because he will suffer collateral consequences if he is not allowed ......
-
People v. Ghobrial
...Connecticut Supreme Court later invalidated the remainder of the death penalty law under the Connecticut Constitution. (State v. Peeler (2016) 321 Conn. 375, 140 A.3d 811 ; State v. Santiago (2015) 318 Conn. 1, 122 A.3d 1.)* Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District......
-
Sepega v. Delaura
...over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Peeler, 321 Conn. 375, 378, 140 A.3d 811 (2016) ; see Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 854, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1992) ;......
-
The Death Penalty & the Dignity Clauses
...dignity: liberty, equality, and life. Part III turns to the Supreme Court’s doctrine of dignity to continue. See, e.g. , State v. Peeler, 140 A.3d 811, 838 n.6 (Conn. 2016) (Robinson, J., concurring) (stating that death row inmates’ “life interest” in abolition of death penalty “differ[s] o......