State v. Sotomayor
| Decision Date | 30 April 2002 |
| Docket Number | (SC 16495). |
| Citation | 794 A.2d 996,260 Conn. 179 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. HERMINIO SOTOMAYOR. |
Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Katz and Palmer, Js.
Jeremiah Donovan, with whom, on the brief, was Rita Christopher, for the appellant (defendant).
Susann E. Gill, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Jonathan C. Benedict, state's attorney, and Joseph T. Corradino, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
The defendant, Herminio Sotomayor, appeals, following our grant of certification to appeal, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment of conviction of the crime of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a).1 State v. Sotomayor, 61 Conn. App. 364, 765 A.2d 1 (2001). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: "Was it harmful error for the trial court to instruct the jury that `[o]ne who uses a deadly weapon upon the vital parts of another will be deemed to have intended the probable result of that act,' to repeat the instruction in response to an inquiry from the jury, and to decline to instruct the jury that use of a deadly weapon could evince an extreme indifference to human life (an element of manslaughter in the first degree) rather than an intent to kill?" State v. Sotomayor, 255 Conn. 952, 770 A.2d 32 (2001).
After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.
The appeal is dismissed.
1. General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) provides: "A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person or causes a suicide by force, duress or deception; except that in any prosecution under this subsection, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant committed the proscribed act or acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, provided nothing contained in this subsection shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...... State v. Smith, supra, 65 Conn.App. at 133, 782 A.2d 175. . The Appellate Court then shifted its analysis to the third and fourth prongs of Whistnant. It relied on its decision in State v. Sotomayor, 61 Conn.App. 364, 379, 765 A.2d 1, cert. dismissed, 260 Conn. 174, 794 A.2d 996, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 313, 154 L. Ed.2d 212 (2002), for the proposition that, "[f]or the third and fourth conditions of Whistnant to be satisfied, there must be sufficient evidence, introduced by ......
-
State v. Grant
...of mind of recklessness." (Citation omitted.) State v. Sotomayor, 61 Conn.App. 364, 380, 765 A.2d 1 (2001), appeal dismissed, 260 Conn. 179, 794 A.2d 996, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 922, 123 S.Ct. 313,537 U.S. 922, 123 S.Ct. 313, 154 L.Ed.2d 212 6. The defendant appears to argue that because th......
-
State v. Watkins
...in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sotomayor, 61 Conn.App. 364, 375, 765 A.2d 1 (2001), appeal dismissed, 260 Conn. 179, 794 A.2d 996 (2002). The defendant concedes that the admitted statements satisfy three of the four Whelan criteria. The statements are in writing, t......
-
Sotomayor v. Comm'r of Corr., No. 32940.
...court set forth the facts giving rise to this matter in State v. Sotomayor, 61 Conn.App. 364, 765 A.2d 1 (2001), appeal dismissed, 260 Conn. 179, 794 A.2d 996, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 922, 123 S.Ct. 313, 154 L.Ed.2d 212 (2002). “During the late evening of October 10, 1989, sixteen year old A......