Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Campbell

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided February 26, 2013No. AC 33142Published

1ConcurrenceEspinosa, J.

I agree with the outcome reached by the majority as well as most of the analysis in its well reasoned decision. I write separately, however, to express my disagreement with the analysis in part I A 1 of the majority opinion that addresses one of the “golden rule” claims of the defendant, Milton Campbell.

Our Supreme Court recognized in State v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748, 931 A.2d 198 (2007), that a prosecutor may not ask the jury “to put itself in the place of the victim, the victim’s family, or a potential victim of the defendant”; id., 772; in an effort to appeal to the emotions, passions and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. WarholicSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  2. State v. BellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
  3. State v. LongSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
  4. State v. OvechkaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
  5. State v. OVECHKASupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010

1 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