Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State v. Miranda
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 30, 1998No. SC 15467Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcdonald, J.
I concur with the result reached by the majority. I do so because the Appellate Court, in reversing the assault convictions, simply held that the defendant, Santos Miranda, was not the biological or legal parent of the victim and, therefore, owed no legal duty to protect *234her. State v. Miranda, 41 Conn. App. 333, 340-41, 675 A.2d 925 (1996). The Appellate Court should have considered the circumstances of the case1 in deciding the issue of legal duty. See Clohessy v. Bachelor, 237 Conn. 31, 45, 675 A.2d 852 (1996).
If the adult defendant was having a continuous intimate relationship with the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Reynolds v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Bouie v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Maynard v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- People v. SteinbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Clohessy v. BachelorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.