Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Courchesne

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 15, 2010No. SC 17174Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSchaller, J.

I agree with the majority’s decision in part I of its opinion that the trial court properly denied the motion of the defendant, Robert Courchesne, to suppress his written confessions and other evidence connecting him with the murder of Demetris Rodgers (Rodgers). I disagree, however, with respect to the majority’s conclusions in parts II through V of its opinion concluding that the bom alive rule is embodied in our Penal Code and that the defendant had fair notice that the rule would apply to his conduct, construing the doctrine of transferred intent in novel fashion, and remanding the case…

2Cases cited93 opinions

  1. Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Burks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. United States v. LanierSupreme Court of the United States · 1997

88 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API