Case Law State v. Leroya M.

State v. Leroya M.

Document Cited Authorities (16) Cited in (3) Related

Naomi T. Fetterman, for the appellant (defendant).

Timothy F. Costello, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's attorney, and Stacey M. Miranda, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.

ECKER, J.

The defendant, LeRoya M., was charged with two counts of murder in violation General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) for killing her seven year old son, D, and her six year old daughter, A. The defendant elected a trial before a three judge court; see General Statutes § 54-82 (a) and (b) ; and presented expert testimony in support of an affirmative defense of lack of capacity due to mental disease or defect pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-13,1 otherwise known as the insanity defense. The state presented expert testimony at trial to rebut the defendant's insanity defense. The trial court ultimately did not find the defendant's expert testimony to be reliable or credible and, as a result, concluded that the defendant had "failed to satisfy her burden of proving that, as a result of mental disease or defect, she lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or to control her conduct within the requirements of the law." On appeal, the defendant claims that no rational fact finder reasonably could have rejected her insanity defense on the present factual record. We disagree and affirm the judgment of conviction.

In a thorough memorandum of decision, the court found the following relevant facts, as supplemented by the undisputed evidence adduced at trial. On Tuesday, June 2, 2015, the defendant's best friend of eighteen years, Jazmin Santiago, received a letter and two credit cards from the defendant in the mail. "In the letter, the defendant directed ... Santiago to use the credit cards to ‘take care of the [kids’] tuition as much as you can ... make sure you take the [money] out and use it for your kids. My mom is my beneficiary for everything. I did what I could for as long as I could.’ " The letter was posted via a United States Postal Service "Click-N-Ship" label, which had been produced online and printed by computer on May 28 or 29, 2015. The return address on the label was the defendant's residence in East Haven.

"Santiago, alarmed by the contents of the letter, called the defendant's cell phone at approximately 2:21 p.m. on June 2. The defendant did not answer. ... Santiago followed up with a text message to the defendant's cell phone and again received no response. ... Santiago continued to call the defendant's cell phone, and the defendant eventually answered the phone. The defendant told ... Santiago that she was tired.’ ... Santiago asked the defendant if she was okay,’ and the defendant responded that she ‘was okay.’ Not satisfied with the defendant's response ... Santiago continued to inquire of the defendant and asked the defendant to come to her home. The defendant stated she ‘could not come over.’ Undeterred, Santiago told the defendant that she would come to the defendant's residence, and the defendant stated that, if Santiago did so, she ‘would not open the door.’ Nevertheless ... Santiago drove to the defendant's house and brought the defendant's letter along with her. The defendant lived ‘five minutes’ from her home.

"The doors and windows of the defendant's house were locked when ... Santiago arrived. The defendant did not answer the door. Santiago called the defendant's cell phone .... The defendant answered and said she was ‘okay’ and ‘resting.’ During one of their ensuing cell phone conversations ... Santiago asked the defendant about [D] and [A]. The defendant told ... Santiago that [A] was good’ and [D] was sleeping.’ Alarmed [by] the defendant's conduct and statements ... Santiago next called 911....

"When the police arrived ... Santiago gave the police at the scene her cell phone. The police told Santiago to call the defendant, but the defendant did not answer the phone. Rather, the defendant opened the second floor exterior door of the residence ... [and] descended the stairs ...." As she descended the stairs, the defendant asked the police, " ‘can we just leave,’ " and told them that "she had ‘saved them.’ " The police noticed lacerations on the defendant's wrists, which were treated by members of the East Haven Fire Department. The defendant was transported to Yale-New Haven Hospital and subsequently admitted to the Yale Psychiatric Institute (YPI) for a mental health evaluation.

In the meantime, "[a]s the events on scene unfolded ... Santiago frantically asked the police to check on the whereabouts of [D] and [A]." East Haven police officers entered the defendant's home using the exterior stairway on the second floor to search for the children. Upon entry, "[t]he police encountered an ‘overwhelming’ presence of natural gas .... The police were forced to exit the home and notified the fire department on the scene. Once the fire department ‘shut off’ the gas supply, the police reentered the home to search for the children. ... The children were eventually located on the first floor [in the living room]. It was readily apparent to the police due to the decomposition of the children's bodies and attendant smell that each of them was dead" and "had been there ‘a long time.’ "

Near the feet of the children's bodies, the police found a letter written by the defendant (suicide note), which provided:

"I'm sure there's an expert somewhere [who] will say the children suffered, but I let them know they were loved very much and they were going to heaven. We said the Lord's Prayer to protect their souls. I know this was meant to end the way it did. I don't know the reason why, but we were meant to die today. After [thirty-five] years, I was convinced for a while I would be okay and I wouldn't ever be this sad again because I had great jobs, good kids and a house and car and I did these things all by myself. I am all by myself still. I'm not meant to be here past this time. It's [okay] and I'm not scared. I'm numb and if I burn for eternity at least I'll know why I deserve it. I don't know what I did to deserve this life and these kids didn't deserve to be brought into it to have sadness and suffering all of the time. I watch them cry and act out because they don't know what they did for their parents to leave them to fend for themselves.

"I was alone and I was meant to be alone. There is no true way to come back from who I am. I am not looking for pity. I want the opposite. Years from now I will be forgotten but we're all dust. God already knew who I was. I couldn't leave [any more] of my kids to the system. They don't all get a happy ending. I love them all. I love them all so much I only wanted to be better for them but they were missing the [one] thing I couldn't ever give them on my own. They were in pain and now they're in heaven. I prayed and God knows my heart, he made me the way I am and knew we weren't fit for this world past this time.

"There will thankfully be no fighting over anything I have. I will be cremated and the bank will get the house and the car. That's it. I really tried. [Thirty-five] was great, my friends and family were great. We all have our own lives. There's nothing anyone could've done. I asked God to stop me if I was making a mistake. I asked to show me I was wrong and save them. They should not be left to burden anyone because I am the only one who could love them like a mother. Not an institution or a social worker.

"[M],2 you cut me out then cut me up, you left these children and only started to care when you saw I was seeing someone else. You couldn't even be a man and admit you hit and choked me. You just wanted to hurt and ruin me and now you have. You cut off the nose but you're the face and you'll suffer from your decisions. I told you when I first got pregnant with [D] that I could not be a single parent again. You did that and left these children to mourn for you every night before bed and in school when they should've been happy with friends. You get your child support back, you save all your money and possessions you cared about more than your family. I warned you I couldn't do it alone when we were going to reconcile but you left them again anyway. You can't take care of them any better than I was and now they'll always be a faint memory. Your daughter [J]3 should be happy about the things she said to them. You should feel better that she was being abusive to them and you did nothing about it. I will not let anyone abuse or take advantage of [any more] of my children. I hope the things [J] did to them will haunt her for the rest of her life. They will be in heaven with people who we lost and loved. They deserve that.

"They got to do all of the things they wanted to do before they died today. They ate their favorite things. They had ice cream and they wanted to paint their nails so we got nail polish and they had fun and really liked how it came out. I saw them truly happy not being shipped off to multiple babysitters and just hanging out with mommy. I always knew I'd be a mom but I just wish I had children within a family with the man who was supposed to care for me and cares for his family the way he should have with me. I would have been a different mother. I would have had happy children and even if I was sad and unable to care for them, he would have been there to care for us all and I would have gotten through it and maybe made it to [thirty-six]. I just couldn't imagine the [second] half of my life being this way. Dragging my kids along for the ride. I made the mistake the first time and didn't end things when I could have ... before I made it far and had more kids. My older kids escaped the same fate because I was too...

1 cases
Document | Connecticut Supreme Court – 2021
Fajardo v. Boston Scientific Corporation
"...to credit one portion of an expert's testimony while rejecting a different part of that same testimony. See, e.g., State v. Leroya M. , 340 Conn. 590, 615, 264 A.3d 983 (2021) ("[t]he [fact finder] is free to accept or reject each expert's opinion in whole or in part" (internal quotation ma..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 cases
Document | Connecticut Supreme Court – 2021
Fajardo v. Boston Scientific Corporation
"...to credit one portion of an expert's testimony while rejecting a different part of that same testimony. See, e.g., State v. Leroya M. , 340 Conn. 590, 615, 264 A.3d 983 (2021) ("[t]he [fact finder] is free to accept or reject each expert's opinion in whole or in part" (internal quotation ma..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex