State v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 03 June 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 15258.,15258. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut, v. Richard REYNOLDS. |
Kent Drager, senior assistant public defender, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant).
William M. Bloss, special public defender, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant) on the proportionality review.
Michael E. O'Hare, assistant state's attorney, with whom were John A. Connelly, state's attorney, and Harry Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, Maureen E. Keegan and Susan C. Marks, supervisory assistant state's attorneys, Mitchell S. Brody, senior assistant state's attorney, Marjorie Allen Dauster, assistant state's attorney, and Bruce R. Lockwood, deputy assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Harry Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state) on the proportionality review.
Officer Walter Williams of the Waterbury police department was on patrol in the vicinity of Orange and Ward Streets in Waterbury in the early morning hours of December 18, 1992, when he was fatally shot in the head at point blank range by the defendant, Richard Reynolds, whom Williams had stopped for questioning. The defendant fled but was apprehended and arrested shortly thereafter and charged with one count of capital felony in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-54b (1)1 and one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a).2 A three judge panel (panel) consisting of West, Fasano and Keller, Js., found the defendant guilty of both counts and, thereafter, the trial court, Fasano, J.,3 conducted the penalty phase hearing before a jury pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-46a.4 At the conclusion of the penalty phase hearing, the jury returned a special verdict finding the existence of two aggravating factors and no mitigating factors. In accordance with the panel's finding of guilt and the jury's special verdict, the trial court rendered judgment of guilty and sentenced the defendant to death.5 On appeal to this court, the defendant raises a total of fiftytwo challenges to the judgment of conviction and to the sentence of death. We affirm both the judgment of conviction and the death sentence.
The panel reasonably could have found the following facts. In late 1992, the defendant, also known as "Kilt," resided with his girlfriend, Karen Smith, and her four children, in Smith's apartment on the second floor of 47 Wood Street in Waterbury. The defendant, a convicted drug dealer, was a member of a cocaine trafficking organization that used Smith's apartment to process and package crack cocaine (cocaine) for sale to street level dealers. Other members of the organization included its leader, Kneshon Carr, and Anthony Crawford, Robert Bryant and Terry Brown.
The members of Carr's organization were together at Smith's apartment early in the morning of December 18, 1992, preparing cocaine for sale. The defendant and Crawford were each given approximately 175 bags of cocaine,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Barber, No. 455605 (CT 5/20/2005)
...State v. Christian, 267 Conn. 710, 841 A.2d 1158 (2004); State v. Francis, 267 Conn. 162, 836 A.2d 1191 (2003); State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 836 A.2d 224 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 908, 124 S.Ct. 1614, 158 L.Ed.2d 254 (2003); State v. Ferguson, 260 Conn. 339, 796 A.2d 1118 (2002); St......
-
State v. Ceballos
...occasional use of rhetorical devices is simply fair argument." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 162, 836 A.2d 224 (2003). A reviewing court also should be mindful that the trial court views the proceedings in totality and, therefore, is i......
-
State v. James G.
...have observed that prosecutorial misconduct may occur during the course of cross-examination of witnesses. E.g., State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 164, 836 A.2d 224 (2003), cert. denied, U.S. (72 U.S.L.W. 3567, March 8, 2004). We have emphasized that "[t]he touchstone of due process analysis ......
-
Commission on Human Rights v. BD. OF EDUC.
...this legislative silence is, as it often is, ambiguous, and an unreliable indicator of legislative intent.46 See State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 79, 836 A.2d 224 (2003) ("[R]eliance on legislative silence is misplaced. It is a basic tenet of statutory construction that we rely on the intent......
-
Irrelevant or Immaterial Questions
...75 Conn.App. 1 (2003); State v. Jolley, 656 N.W.2d 305 (2003). See also Dysthe v. State, 63 P.3d 875 (Wyoming, 2003); State v. Reynolds, 824 A.2d 611, 264 Conn. 1 (Conn., 2003); People v. Davis, 272 Ill.Dec. 397, 787 N.E.2d 212 (2003). Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., In......
-
Irrelevant or immaterial questions
...75 Conn.App. 1 (2003); State v. Jolley, 656 N.W.2d 305 (2003). See also Dysthe v. State, 63 P.3d 875 (Wyoming, 2003); State v. Reynolds, 824 A.2d 611, 264 Conn. 1 (Conn., 2003); People v. Davis, 272 Ill.Dec. 397, 787 N.E.2d 212 (2003). Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., In......
-
Irrelevant or immaterial questions
...75 Conn.App. 1 (2003); State v. Jolley, 656 N.W.2d 305 (2003). See also Dysthe v. State, 63 P.3d 875 (Wyoming, 2003); State v. Reynolds, 824 A.2d 611, 264 Conn. 1 (Conn., 2003); People v. Davis, 272 Ill.Dec. 397, 787 N.E.2d 212 (2003). Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., In......
-
Irrelevant or Immaterial Questions
...75 Conn.App. 1 (2003); State v. Jolley, 656 N.W.2d 305 (2003). See also Dysthe v. State, 63 P.3d 875 (Wyoming, 2003); State v. Reynolds, 824 A.2d 611, 264 Conn. 1 (Conn., 2003); People v. Davis, 272 Ill.Dec. 397, 787 N.E.2d 212 (2003). Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., In......