State v. Herring ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • ******************************************************
    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. 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.
    In no event will any such motions be accepted before
    the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
    All opinions are subject to modification and technical
    correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
    cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. 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 Con-
    necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
    latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
    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 repro-
    duced and distributed without the express written per-
    mission of the Commission on Official Legal
    Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
    ******************************************************
    STATE v. HERRING—FIRST CONCURRENCE
    ROGERS, C. J., concurring. For the reasons explained
    in my concurrence in State v. Bellamy, 
    323 Conn. 400
    ,
    454, A.3d (2016), I continue to adhere to my belief
    that we should overrule our opinion in State v. Kitchens,
    
    299 Conn. 447
    , 
    10 A.3d 942
    (2011), thereby reinstating
    the much narrower conception of implied waiver of
    claims of jury instructional error that predated Kitch-
    ens. See State v. 
    Bellamy, supra
    , 454–55. Under the
    unique circumstances and for the limited purpose of
    the present appeal, however, I concur with and join the
    majority opinion.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SC19383

Filed Date: 10/25/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/20/2016