State v. Ovechka
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Dissent
SCHALLER, J., with whom KATZ and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.,
join, dissenting. Because the jury was not instructed to determine whether the injuries suffered by Michael Rynich constituted a “ ‘[s]erious physical injury’ ” as defined in General Statutes § 53a-3 (4), and because the injuries suffered, in my view, do not satisfy, as a matter of law, the statutory criteria for serious physical injury, I respectfully dissent. I begin by clarifying our role in this case and why the foundation of the majority’s conclusion is based on a faulty premise. Next, I will demonstrate how, under proper consideration…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- State v. MilumSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- State v. MorganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- United States v. Alonzo L. Harris A/K/A "Letter" Alonzo L. HarrisCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- State v. JeustinianoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1977
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.