State v. Santiago, No. 17413.
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | NORCOTT |
| Citation | 305 Conn. 101,49 A.3d 566 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Eduardo SANTIAGO. |
| Docket Number | No. 17413. |
| Decision Date | 12 June 2012 |
305 Conn. 101
49 A.3d 566
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Eduardo SANTIAGO.
No. 17413.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Argued April 27, 2011.
Decided June 12, 2012.
[49 A.3d 578]
Mark Rademacher, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Marjorie Allen Dauster, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Robert J. Scheinblum, Donna Mambrino and John F. Fahey, senior assistant state's attorneys, for the appellee (state).
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, ZARELLA, McLACHLAN, EVELEIGH, HARPER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.
[49 A.3d 579]
NORCOTT, J.
+-----------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
+-----------------+
+------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦I.¦BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¦584 ¦
+------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A.¦Guilt Phase ¦584¦
+--+--+--------------------------------+---¦
¦ ¦B.¦Penalty Phase ¦589¦
+--+--+--------------------------------+---¦
¦ ¦C.¦Outline of Claims on Appeal ¦597¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦II. ¦DID PROBABLE CAUSE EXIST FOR THE DEFENDANT'S ARREST ON CAPITAL ¦600 ¦
¦ ¦FELONY CHARGES UNDER § 53a–54b (2)? ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦III.¦SUPPRESSION ISSUES ¦602 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦Additional Relevant Facts and Procedural History ¦603 ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦Should the Trial Court Have Suppressed the Defendant's ¦ ¦
¦ ¦B. ¦Statement Made in the Police Cruiser about the Location of ¦606 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦the Rifle? ¦ ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦Did the Trial Court Improperly Deny the ny the Defendant's ¦ ¦
¦ ¦C. ¦Motion to Suppress His Statement Made at the Police ¦609 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Station? ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Was the Defendant's Miranda Waiver Voluntary? ¦609 ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Did the Police Violate the Defendant's Rights under ¦611 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Stoddard? ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦D. ¦Did the Police Illegally Seize the Murder Weapon during the¦615 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Protective Sweep of the Defendant's Apartment? ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦IV. ¦JURY SELECTION CLAIMS ¦617 ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE JURY'S GENERAL ¦ ¦
¦V. ¦VERDICT FINDING THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF CAPITAL FELONY IN ¦619 ¦
¦ ¦VIOLATION OF § 53a–54b (2) UNDER A THEORY OF ACCESSORIAL ¦ ¦
¦ ¦LIABILITY PURSUANT TO § 53a–8? ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦VI. ¦CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE GUILT PHASE JURY INSTRUCTIONS ¦624 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦Did the Trial Court Properly Instruct the Jury about the ¦625 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Elements of Capital Felony under §§ 53a–54b (2) and 53a–8? ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Was a Separate Agreement by Tyrell to Murder the Victim¦ ¦
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦for Pecuniary Gain Necessary for the Defendant to Be ¦627 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Held Accessorily Liable under §§ 53a–54b (2) and 53a–8?¦ ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦Did the Trial Court Improperly Fail to Define the Term ¦628 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦“Hired” under § 53a–54b (2)? ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦Does the Concededly Improper Instruction on Conspiracy to ¦ ¦
¦ ¦B. ¦Commit Burglary in Violation of §§ 53a–48 and 53a–101 (a) ¦630 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦(2) Require Reversal of the Defendant's Conviction of That ¦ ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Charge? ¦ ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦Did the Trial Court Improperly Instruct the Jury that It ¦ ¦
¦ ¦C. ¦Could Not Draw an Adverse Inference from the State's ¦632 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Failure to Produce Certain Cell Phone Records? ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦VII.¦DID THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY REFUSE TO DISCLOSE TO THE ¦636 ¦
¦ ¦DEFENDANT THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT FILE PERTAINING TO HIS FAMILY? ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦Additional Relevant Facts and Procedural History¦639 ¦
+---+---+------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦B. ¦Governing Law ¦641 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦1. ¦Constitutional Bases for In Camera Review ¦642 ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦2. ¦In Camera Review as Applied in Death Penalty Cases ¦645 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦under the Due Process Clause ¦ ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦3. ¦The Import of the ABA Guidelines to In Camera Review of¦648 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Privileged Records ¦ ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦4. ¦Appellate Review of the Trial Court's In Camera ¦651 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Determination ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦WAS THE JURY'S SENTENCING VERDICT ARBITRARY, NOT SUPPORTED BY ¦ ¦
¦VIII.¦SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OR OTHERWISE A PRODUCT OF “PASSION, ¦654 ¦
¦ ¦PREJUDICE OR OTHER ARBITRARY FACTOR?” ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦Was There Sufficient Evidence to Support Proof of the Sole ¦655 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Aggravating Factor? ¦ ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦Could the Jury Reasonably Have Found That the Sole ¦ ¦
¦ ¦B. ¦Aggravating Factor Outweighed the Defendant's Mitigating ¦656 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Evidence? ¦ ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦DOES THE FACT THAT THE SOLE AGGRAVATING FACTOR FOUND BY THE ¦ ¦
¦IX. ¦JURY IS IDENTICAL TO AN ELEMENT OF THE UNDERLYING CAPITAL CRIME¦658 ¦
¦ ¦VIOLATE THE CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTION? ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦X. ¦PENALTY PHASE INSTRUCTIONAL CLAIMS ¦665 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦A. ¦Did the Trial Court Define the Pecuniary Gain Aggravating ¦666 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Factor Adequately? ¦ ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦Did the Trial Court Improperly Instruct the Jury That There¦ ¦
¦ ¦B. ¦Is No Time or Premeditation Requirement Attendant to the ¦669 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Defendant's “Expectation of the Receipt of Anything of ¦ ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Pecuniary Value?” ¦ ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦Did the Trial Court Improperly Instruct the Jury That the ¦ ¦
¦ ¦C. ¦Defendant Bore the Burden of Proving the Mitigating Factor ¦670 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦of “Lingering Doubt?” ¦ ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦Did the Trial Court Improperly Instruct the Jury That It ¦ ¦
¦ ¦D. ¦Was Not Required to Consider the Cumulative Effect of All ¦676 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦the Mitigating Evidence ¦ ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦Did the Trial Court's Instructions Improperly Limit the ¦ ¦
¦ ¦E. ¦Jury's Consideration of Mitigating Factors to Those That ¦677 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Are “Unique?” ¦ ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦ ¦ ¦Did the Trial Court Improperly Fail to Instruct the Jury, ¦ ¦
¦ ¦F. ¦Sua Sponte, to Consider the Statutory Mitigating Factor of ¦678 ¦
¦ ¦ ¦Minor Involvement under § 53a–46a (h)(3)? ¦ ¦...To continue reading
Request your trial
47 cases
-
State v. Santiago
...crimes that will be deterred by executing the defendant in this case. That number is zero." (Emphasis in original.) State v. Santiago, 305 Conn. 101, 321, 49 A.3d 566 (2012) (Harper, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Accordingly, the execution of the defendant, as well as the ......
-
State v. Santiago, SC 17413
...of death,5 and the defendant appealed to this court from both the judgment of conviction and the death sentence. See State v. Santiago, 305 Conn. 101, 117-18, 49 A.3d 566 (2012) (Santiago I). While the appeal was pending, the legislature repealed the death penalty for all crimes committed o......
-
State v. Anderson, AC 35432
...presents a question of law over which [we have] plenary review." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Santiago, 305 Conn. 101, 190-91, 49 A.3d 566 (2012). With the foregoing principles in mind, we turn to the merits of the defendant's claim. At the outset, we obser......
-
State v. Santiago, SC17413
...230 Conn. 250. Since Ross, capital punishment has been deemed facially constitutional in many other cases as well. See State v. Santiago, 305 Conn. 101, 307, 49 A.3d 566 (2012); State v. Rizzo, supra, 303 Conn. 184, 201; State v. Colon, supra, 272 Conn. 383; State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, ......
Request a trial to view additional results