Case Law State v. Santiago, No. 17413.

State v. Santiago, No. 17413.

Document Cited Authorities (1) Cited in (47) Related

305 Conn. 101

49 A.3d 566

STATE of Connecticut

v.Eduardo SANTIAGO.

No. 17413.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 27, 2011.

Decided June 12, 2012.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Mark Rademacher, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Marjorie Allen Dauster, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Robert J. Scheinblum, Donna Mambrino and John F. Fahey, senior assistant state's attorneys, for the appellee (state).

ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, ZARELLA, McLACHLAN, EVELEIGH, HARPER and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.

NORCOTT, J.

+-----------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
+-----------------+

+------------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦                                        ¦    ¦
+--+----------------------------------------+----¦
¦I.¦BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¦584 ¦
+------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦A.¦Guilt Phase                     ¦584¦
+--+--+--------------------------------+---¦
¦  ¦B.¦Penalty Phase                   ¦589¦
+--+--+--------------------------------+---¦
¦  ¦C.¦Outline of Claims on Appeal     ¦597¦
+------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦II. ¦DID PROBABLE CAUSE EXIST FOR THE DEFENDANT'S ARREST ON CAPITAL ¦600    ¦
¦    ¦FELONY CHARGES UNDER § 53a–54b (2)?                            ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦III.¦SUPPRESSION ISSUES                                             ¦602    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Additional Relevant Facts and Procedural History           ¦603   ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦Should the Trial Court Have Suppressed the Defendant's     ¦      ¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦Statement Made in the Police Cruiser about the Location of ¦606   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦the Rifle?                                                 ¦      ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦Did the Trial Court Improperly Deny the ny the Defendant's ¦      ¦
¦    ¦C.  ¦Motion to Suppress His Statement Made at the Police        ¦609   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Station?                                                   ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦Was the Defendant's Miranda Waiver Voluntary?          ¦609   ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦Did the Police Violate the Defendant's Rights under    ¦611   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Stoddard?                                              ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦D.  ¦Did the Police Illegally Seize the Murder Weapon during the¦615   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Protective Sweep of the Defendant's Apartment?             ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦IV. ¦JURY SELECTION CLAIMS                                          ¦617    ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦WAS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE JURY'S GENERAL    ¦       ¦
¦V.  ¦VERDICT FINDING THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF CAPITAL FELONY IN      ¦619    ¦
¦    ¦VIOLATION OF § 53a–54b (2) UNDER A THEORY OF ACCESSORIAL       ¦       ¦
¦    ¦LIABILITY PURSUANT TO § 53a–8?                                 ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦VI. ¦CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE GUILT PHASE JURY INSTRUCTIONS          ¦624    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Did the Trial Court Properly Instruct the Jury about the   ¦625   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Elements of Capital Felony under §§ 53a–54b (2) and 53a–8? ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Was a Separate Agreement by Tyrell to Murder the Victim¦      ¦
¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦for Pecuniary Gain Necessary for the Defendant to Be   ¦627   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Held Accessorily Liable under §§ 53a–54b (2) and 53a–8?¦      ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦Did the Trial Court Improperly Fail to Define the Term ¦628   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦“Hired” under § 53a–54b (2)?                           ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦Does the Concededly Improper Instruction on Conspiracy to  ¦      ¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦Commit Burglary in Violation of §§ 53a–48 and 53a–101 (a)  ¦630   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦(2) Require Reversal of the Defendant's Conviction of That ¦      ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Charge?                                                    ¦      ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦Did the Trial Court Improperly Instruct the Jury that It   ¦      ¦
¦    ¦C.  ¦Could Not Draw an Adverse Inference from the State's       ¦632   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Failure to Produce Certain Cell Phone Records?             ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦VII.¦DID THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY REFUSE TO DISCLOSE TO THE       ¦636    ¦
¦    ¦DEFENDANT THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT FILE PERTAINING TO HIS FAMILY? ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A. ¦Additional Relevant Facts and Procedural History¦639   ¦
+---+---+------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦B. ¦Governing Law                                   ¦641   ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦Constitutional Bases for In Camera Review              ¦642   ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦In Camera Review as Applied in Death Penalty Cases     ¦645   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦under the Due Process Clause                           ¦      ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦3. ¦The Import of the ABA Guidelines to In Camera Review of¦648   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Privileged Records                                     ¦      ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦4. ¦Appellate Review of the Trial Court's In Camera        ¦651   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Determination                                          ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦                                                               ¦      ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦     ¦WAS THE JURY'S SENTENCING VERDICT ARBITRARY, NOT SUPPORTED BY  ¦      ¦
¦VIII.¦SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OR OTHERWISE A PRODUCT OF “PASSION,        ¦654   ¦
¦     ¦PREJUDICE OR OTHER ARBITRARY FACTOR?”                          ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Was There Sufficient Evidence to Support Proof of the Sole ¦655   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Aggravating Factor?                                        ¦      ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦Could the Jury Reasonably Have Found That the Sole         ¦      ¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦Aggravating Factor Outweighed the Defendant's Mitigating   ¦656   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Evidence?                                                  ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦DOES THE FACT THAT THE SOLE AGGRAVATING FACTOR FOUND BY THE    ¦       ¦
¦IX. ¦JURY IS IDENTICAL TO AN ELEMENT OF THE UNDERLYING CAPITAL CRIME¦658
...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | Connecticut Supreme Court – 2015
State v. Santiago
"..."
Document | Connecticut Supreme Court – 2015
State v. Santiago
"... STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EDUARDO SANTIAGO * SC 17413 Supreme Court of Connecticut Argued April 23, 2013 August 25, 2015 Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald and Espinosa, Js. ** Mark Rademacher , assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Harry Weller , senior assistant state's attorney, with whom were ... "
Document | Connecticut Court of Appeals – 2015
State v. Anderson
"... ... Santiago , 305 Conn. 101, 190-91, 49 A.3d 566 (2012).         With the foregoing principles in mind, we turn to the merits of the defendant's claim ... "
Document | Connecticut Supreme Court – 2015
State v. Santiago
"..."
Document | Connecticut Supreme Court – 2015
State v. Santiago
"..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 102-2, January 2017 – 2017
The Death Penalty & the Dignity Clauses
"...it deprives innocent people of continued opportunity for exoneration throughout the course of one’s natural life); State v. Santiago, 49 A.3d 566, 700 (Conn. 2012) (Harper, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (arguing that the death penalty is unconstitutional per se under state ..."

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
1 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 102-2, January 2017 – 2017
The Death Penalty & the Dignity Clauses
"...it deprives innocent people of continued opportunity for exoneration throughout the course of one’s natural life); State v. Santiago, 49 A.3d 566, 700 (Conn. 2012) (Harper, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (arguing that the death penalty is unconstitutional per se under state ..."

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
5 cases
Document | Connecticut Supreme Court – 2015
State v. Santiago
"..."
Document | Connecticut Supreme Court – 2015
State v. Santiago
"... STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EDUARDO SANTIAGO * SC 17413 Supreme Court of Connecticut Argued April 23, 2013 August 25, 2015 Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald and Espinosa, Js. ** Mark Rademacher , assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Harry Weller , senior assistant state's attorney, with whom were ... "
Document | Connecticut Court of Appeals – 2015
State v. Anderson
"... ... Santiago , 305 Conn. 101, 190-91, 49 A.3d 566 (2012).         With the foregoing principles in mind, we turn to the merits of the defendant's claim ... "
Document | Connecticut Supreme Court – 2015
State v. Santiago
"..."
Document | Connecticut Supreme Court – 2015
State v. Santiago
"..."

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

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.