Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Hardy

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 9, 2006No. SC 17324Published

1DissentKatz, J.

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the state need not demonstrate that a weapon utilizes gunpowder to discharge a shot in order to establish that it is a deadly weapon as defined by General Statutes § 53a-3 (6). The majority concludes *137that a weapon from which a shot may be discharged is a “deadly weapon” pursuant to § 53a-3 (6) if it is designed for violence and is capable of inflicting death or serious bodily harm.1 In accordance with the majority’s conclusion then, the state, in order to prove robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (2), had the…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. State v. HintonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993
  3. State v. PaduaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
  4. Haesche v. KissnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
  5. Vilcinskas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1956

20 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