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 part

ZARELLA, J.,

with whom NORCOTT, J., joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Today, the majority subjects the defendant to another trial for capital felony and murder by adopting, for the first time in the state of Connecticut, the bom alive rule. In so doing, the majority, in an opinion of more than 160 pages, fails to demonstrate that the murder statute encompasses the acts alleged to have been committed, adds a substantive element of proof that does not appear in the statutes governing murder, thus making the killing of a fetus that dies after birth a new substantive offense not…

2Cases cited47 opinions

  1. United States v. BassSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. People v. GreerIllinois Supreme Court · 1980
  3. State v. SalamonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
  4. State v. CourchesneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
  5. State v. RossSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994

42 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