State v. Sotomayor
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** 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 Connecticut 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 Connecticut 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 reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. HERMINIO SOTOMAYOR (SC 16495) Sullivan, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Katz and Palmer, Js. Argued March 14 officially released April 30, 2002 Jeremiah Donovan, with whom, on the brief, was Rita Christopher, for the appellant (defendant). Susann E. Gill, senior assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Jonathan C. Benedict, state s attorney, and Joseph T. Corradino, assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Herminio Sotomayor, appeals, following our grant of certification to appeal, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court s judgment of conviction of the crime of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a).1 State v. Sotomayor, 61 Conn. App. 364, 765 A.2d 1 (2001). We granted the defendant s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: Was it harmful error for the trial court to instruct the jury that [o]ne who uses a deadly weapon upon the vital parts of another will be deemed to have intended the probable result of that act, to repeat the instruction in response to an inquiry from the jury, and to decline to instruct the jury that use of a deadly weapon could evince an extreme indifference to human life (an element of manslaughter in the first degree) rather than an intent to kill? State v. Sotomayor, 255 Conn. 952, 770 A.2d 32 (2001). After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed. 1 General Statutes § 53a-54a (a) provides: A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person or causes a suicide by force, duress or deception; except that in any prosecution under this subsection, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant committed the proscribed act or acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, provided nothing contained in this subsection shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
