Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

State v. Santiago, No. 17413.

Document Cited authorities 1 Cited in 13 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Decision Date12 June 2012
Docket NumberNo. 17413.
Citation305 Conn. 101,49 A.3d 566
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Eduardo SANTIAGO.

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.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

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.

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
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • State v. Santiago
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 25, 2015
  • State v. Santiago
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 25, 2015
    ... STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EDUARDO SANTIAGO * SC 17413 Supreme Court of Connecticut Argued April 23, 2013 August 25, 2015 Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald and Espinosa, Js. ** Mark Rademacher , assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Harry Weller , senior assistant state's attorney, with whom were ... ...
  • State v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 2015
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • State v. Santiago
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 25, 2015
    • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 93, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...Conn. 906, 203 A.3d 569 (2019). [445] Id. at 845. [446] Id. at 850. [447] 328 Conn. 444, 180 A.3d 882 (2018). [448] State v. Santiago, 305 Conn. 101, 190-91, 49 A.3d 566 (2012), superseded in part on other grounds, 318 Conn. 1, 122 A.3d 1 (2015). [449] State v. Aviles, 277 Conn. 281, 310, 8......
  • A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 90, 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...for her invaluable help with research and organizing. [1] 318 Conn. 1, 122 A.3d 1 (2015). [2] 321 Conn. 375, 140 A.3d 811 (2016). [3] 305 Conn. 101, 49 A.3d 566 (2012). [4] State V. Santiago (Santiago Ii), 318 Conn. 1, 11, 122 A.3d 1 (2015). [5] Id. at 9. [6] 222 Conn. 672, 610 A.2d 1225 (1......
  • 2012 Connecticut Appellate Review
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 87, 2013
    • Invalid date
    ...547 (1943). [16] 167 Conn. 10, 355 A.2d 49 (1974). [17] 303 Conn. 798, 36 A.3d 661 (2012). [18] 304 Conn. 330, 39 A.3d 1105 (2012). [19]305 Conn. 101, 248-60, 49 A.3d 566 (2012). [20] See State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992). [21] 304 Conn. 383, 40 A.3d 290 (2012). [22] Id.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT