Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. SANTOS MIRANDA (SC 17088)
Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Zarella, Js. Argued March 24--officially released December 22, 2004*

Daniel J. Krisch, with whom were Michael S. Taylor and, on the brief, Kenneth J. Bartschi and Julia K. Ulrich, legal intern, for the appellant (defendant). Nancy L. Chupak, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Michael Dearington, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. This case returns to us for a third time. See State v. Miranda, 260 Conn. 93, 794 A.2d 506 (2002) (Miranda II); State v. Miranda, 245 Conn. 209, 715 A.2d 680 (1998) (Miranda I). In this appeal, for reasons we will give in a full opinion in due course, we conclude that as a matter of state law, we should reverse our conclusion in Miranda I that the defendant, Santos Miranda, could be convicted of assault in the first

degree in violation of General Statutes

Download State v. Miranda.pdf

Connecticut Law