(a) Any sentence of death imposed in accordance with the provisions of section
53a-46a shall be reviewed by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rules. In addition to its authority to correct errors at trial, the Supreme Court shall either affirm the sentence of death or vacate said sentence and remand for imposition of a sentence in accordance with subparagraph (A) of subdivision (1) of section
53a-35a.
(b) The Supreme Court shall affirm the sentence of death unless it determines that: (1) The sentence was the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor; or (2) the evidence fails to support the finding of an aggravating factor specified in subsection (i) of section 53a-46a.
(c) The sentence review shall be in addition to direct appeal and, if an appeal is taken, the review and appeal shall be consolidated for consideration. The court shall then render its decision on the legal errors claimed and the validity of the sentence.
(P.A. 80-332, S. 2; P.A. 81-472, S. 151, 159; P.A. 85-366, S. 2; P.A. 92-260, S. 23; P.A. 95-16, S. 3, 5; 95-19, S. 3; P.A. 12-5, S. 6.)
History: P.A. 81-472 made technical changes; P.A. 85-366 made a technical change to reflect changes made to Sec. 53a-46a by same public act; P.A. 92-260 made technical changes; P.A. 95-16 deleted Subsec. (b)(3) that had required Supreme Court to affirm the death sentence unless it determines the sentence to be excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, effective April 12, 1995; P.A. 95-19 made a technical change; P.A. 12-5 amended Subsec. (a) to add “subparagraph (A) of” re reference to Sec. 53a-35a(1), effective April 25, 2012.
Cited. 212 C. 258. Does not violate prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment nor infringe on due process rights. 230 C. 183. Cited. 235 C. 206; 237 C. 332. Death penalty unconstitutional under Art. I, Secs. 8 and 9 of Connecticut Constitution. 318 C. 1.
Cited. 9 CA 686.
Subsec. (b):
Class of similar cases to include all convictions of a capital felony after October 1, 1973, resulting from a trial or from a plea whether or not convictions were followed by imposition of death penalty. 225 C. 559. Prohibition against disproportionality discussed. 234 C. 735. Court concluded that statutory proportionality review scheme is constitutional and that it involves the precedent seeking method of comparative, rather than traditional, proportionality review. 238 C. 389. Court stayed proceedings pending review. 272 C. 674. Subsec. does not create nonwaivable right to mandatory sentence review by Connecticut Supreme Court of any and all claims that death sentence was “the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor”, regardless of the time and manner in which claim was raised; court is not required to impose moratorium on execution of death sentences whenever an unproven claim of systemic arbitrariness in administration of death penalty scheme is raised. Id., 676. Defendant's claim that his death sentence was imposed arbitrarily and capriciously because there are no uniform standards guiding prosecutors' decisions to seek the death penalty is contradicted by overwhelming authority and is rejected. 303 C. 71. Jury could reasonably have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole aggravating factor outweighed the numerous mitigating factors and therefore the jury's sentencing verdict was not unreasonable and the sentence was not the product of passion, prejudice or other arbitrary factor. 305 C. 101, but see 318 C. 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases, 1989–2015 · leading case:
State v. Webb, 680 A.2d 147 (Conn. 1996).
State v. Webb, 680 A.2d 147 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 86× “” Moreover, the trial court gave separate instructions concerning each aggravant and marshaled the evidence related to each aggravant separately.”
State v. Reynolds, 836 A.2d 224 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 40× “M Alleged Juror Misconduct The defendant claims that certain comments purportedly made by several jurors to a reporter 133 after the conclusion of the penalty phase hearing indicate that one or more of those jurors failed to follow the law in its deliberations and, consequently,…”
In Re Application for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Ross, 866 A.2d 554 (Conn. 2005).
· cites it 148× “Upon due reflection, however, I now conclude that both General Statutes § 53a-46b [1] and our inherent supervisory powers over the administration of justice in this state require this court to act, sua sponte, to stay the execution of the defendant, pending resolution of the…”
State v. Breton, 824 A.2d 778 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 53× “” General Statutes § 53a-46b (b) (3). There is nothing freakish, arbitrary, wanton or aberrational about the sentence in this case.”
State v. Cobb, 743 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 41× “Furthermore, because our statute mandates this court’s review of the relevant factual findings and scrutiny of the record to assure that the death penalty was not the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor; General Statutes § 53a-46b (b) (1); it satisfies…”
State v. Cobb, 663 A.2d 948 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 72× “2 In his *738 motion, the defendant requests that we consider “all cases prosecuted in Connecticut after October 1,1973, in which a capital felony could have been charged pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-46b and which resulted in a homicide conviction, following a plea or…”
State v. Ross, 849 A.2d 648 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 18× “’ General Statutes § 53a-46b (b) (3). There is nothing freakish, arbitrary, wanton or aberrational about the sentence in this case.”
State v. Ross, 646 A.2d 1318 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 17× “Furthermore, because our statute mandates this court’s review of the relevant factual findings and scrutiny of the record to assure that the death penalty was not “the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor”; General Statutes § 53a-46b (b) (1); it satisfies…”
State v. Colon, 864 A.2d 666 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 6× ““In reviewing a claim that the evidence failfed] to support the finding of an aggravating factor specified in [§ 53a-46a (i)]; [General Statutes § 53a-46b (b) (2)]; 134 we subject that finding to the same independent and scrupulous examination of the entire record that we employ…”
State v. Johnson, 751 A.2d 298 (Conn. 2000).
· cites it 12× “to 1991) § 53a-46b. 7 We *9 affirm the judgment of conviction on all counts.”
State v. Rizzo, 31 A.3d 1094 (Conn. 2011).
· cites it 8× “VIII The defendant argues next that his death sentence was imposed arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of General Statutes § 53a-46b (b)(1) [77] and the eighth amendment and contrary to federal guarantees of due process and equal protection because there are no uniform…”
State v. Breton, 663 A.2d 1026 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 10× “16 *221 In reviewing a claim under § 53a-46b (b) (2) that “the evidence fail[ed] to support the finding of an aggravating factor specified in subsection (h) of section 53a-46a,” we will subject that finding “to the same independent and scrupulous examination of the entire record…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-46b(b)(1) — 1 case
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-46b(b)(3) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.