Indeed, the state goes so far as to contend that our decision in Santiago was so unjust, and so completely devoid of legitimacy, that it should be afforded no precedential value and now may be overturned, only nine months later, merely because the composition of this court has changed. The state, however, has argued that Santiago was decided without the benefit of adequate briefing by the parties and that, as a result, the majority in Santiago made a series of legal and historical errors that led to an incorrect decision. Ordinarily, our determination in Santiago that the death penalty is no longer constitutional would control the outcome of the present case as well, and the defendant and others similarly situated would be entitled to resentencing consistent with our decision in Santiago. The present appeal is brought by another defendant, Russell Peeler, who, like Santiago, committed a capital felony and was sentenced to death prior to the enactment of P.A. Accordingly, we vacated the death sentence of the defendant in that case, Eduardo Santiago, and we ordered that he be resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release. Specifically, we determined that to execute individuals convicted of committing capital felonies prior to April, 2012, now that the legislature has determined that the death penalty is neither necessary nor appropriate for any crimes committed after that date, no matter how atrocious or depraved, would be out of step with contemporary standards of decency and devoid of any legitimate penological justification. 12-5) capital punishment no longer comports with the state constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 1, 122 A.3d 1 (2015), a majority of this court concluded that, following the legislature’s April, 2012 decision to abolish the death penalty for all future offenses see Public Acts 2012, No. PEELER-SECOND CONCURRENCE PALMER, J., with whom EVELEIGH and McDONALD, Js., join, concurring. 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. 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. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date. 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. ****************************************************** 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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |