No person may be convicted of any crime punishable by death or life imprisonment without the possibility of release without the testimony of at least two witnesses, or that which is equivalent thereto.
(1949 Rev., S. 8799; P.A. 80-313, S. 47; P.A. 12-5, S. 29.)
History: P.A. 80-313 substituted “may” for “shall”; P.A. 12-5 added provision re crime punishable by life imprisonment without possibility of release, effective April 25, 2012.
Not necessary that there should be two witnesses to every material fact; true rule stated. 49 C. 385; 77 C. 274; 78 C. 18; 93 C. 246; 97 C. 465; 103 C. 467; 106 C. 705; 122 C. 533; 126 C. 57. Whether requirement is met is for the jury to say. 81 C. 27; 90 C. 126; 93 C. 246; 97 C. 465; 103 C. 467. Charge embodying rule approved. 97 C. 465. Cited. 123 C. 673. If testimony of one or more witnesses tends to prove that a murder has been committed, testimony of only one other witness implicating defendant is sufficient to satisfy statute. 139 C. 475. The proof of all the essential elements of a capital crime charged shall not depend upon the testimony of one witness. 142 C. 113. Cited. 147 C. 95. One witness may testify to some of the essential facts and another to the rest of the essential facts and the statute may be satisfied. Id., 194. Adoption of Wigmore definition of “corpus delicti”; previous cases defining “corpus delicti” overruled. 152 C. 15. Cited. 182 C. 511; 229 C. 125; 230 C. 183; 233 C. 813; 235 C. 206. Confession and independent circumstantial evidence satisfied the two witness rule. 251 C. 285. Death penalty unconstitutional under Art. I, Secs. 8 and 9 of Connecticut Constitution. 318 C. 1.
Evidentiary burden imposed by section is not constitutionally compelled. 121 CA 699.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases, 1959–2017 · leading case:
State v. Ross, 646 A.2d 1318 (Conn. 1994).
State v. Ross, 646 A.2d 1318 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 22× “2 The defendant requested the trial court to instruct the jury, in accordance with the terms of General Statutes § 54-83, that “[n]o person maybe convicted of any crime punishable by death without the testimony of at least two witnesses, or that which is equivalent thereto.”
State v. Day, 661 A.2d 539 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 9× “*848 VI The defendant’s final claim concerns the “two witness” rule codified at General Statutes § 54-83, which provides that “[n]o person may be convicted of any crime punishable by death without the testimony of at least two witnesses, or that which is equivalent thereto.”
State v. White, 640 A.2d 572 (Conn. 1994).
· cites it 7× “n appeal, both defendants claim that the trial court improperly: (1) refused to dismiss the charges against them or order a new trial even though the state had improperly suppressed exculpatory evidence, depriving the defendants of a fair trial; (2) refused to dismiss the…”
State v. Cobb, 743 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Both his conduct before and after he sexually assaulted her, and his subsequent confession, were sufficient to establish that the defendant murdered the victim in the course of the commission of sexual assault in the first degree. G The Two Witness Rule The defendant also claims…”
State v. Hackett, 438 A.2d 726 (Conn. 1980).
· cites it 6× “It is not disputed that the evidence must, at this juncture, be viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict finding the defendant guilty.”
State v. Ortiz, 252 Conn. 533 (Conn. 2000).
· cites it 3× “*578 The two witness rule is codified at General Statutes § 54-83 and provides that “[n]o person maybe convicted of any crime punishable by death without the testimony of at least two witnesses, or that which is equivalent thereto.”
State v. Castillo, 998 A.2d 177 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 5× “*712 And, in this case, where the state has called approximately twenty-five witnesses, you may well find that that burden has been met.”
State v. Leniart, 140 A.3d 1026 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 2× “14 This circumstantial evidence convinces me that the state offered sufficient independent evidence permitting the jury to infer that A.P. was dead, even though her body had not been found, and corroborating the trustworthiness of the confessory admissions made by the defendant…”
State v. Breton, 663 A.2d 1026 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 3× “The defendant also contended, in his original appeal brief, that the trial court failed to charge the jury at the penalty phase on the two witness rule under General Statutes § 54-83, which provides that “[n]o person may be convicted of any crime punishable by death without the…”
State v. Tillman, 202 A.2d 494 (Conn. 1964).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, General Statutes § 54-83 precludes the conviction of a person for any capital crime without the testimony of two witnesses, or that which is equivalent thereto; see State v.”
State v. O'Donnell, 166 A.3d 646 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 4× “2d 537 (2010), we declined to review the defendant's claim that the court improperly charged the jury with regard to the two witness rule contained in General Statutes § 54-83, which provides in relevant part that "[n]o person may be convicted of any crime punishable by death .”
State v. Doucette, 157 A.2d 487 (Conn. 1959).
“Since a new trial is required, the claim of the defendant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction of murder in the first degree within the requirements of our so-called two-witness statute, § 54-83, need not be discussed. The further claim of the defendant…”
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.