State v. Ross (dissenting)
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 v. ROSS DISSENT NORCOTT, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent because I maintain my position that the death penalty has no place in the jurisprudence of the state of Connecticut. See State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 446, 824 A.2d 778 (2003) (Norcott, J., dissenting). I continue to respect the position of the majority of this court regarding this matter, but briefly I write again to supplement my reasoning that the death penalty should be abolished in this state. On a national scale, statistical evidence continues to mount showing that the number of executions and death sentences, the size of death row and public support for capital punishment all fell during 2003, according to the Death Penalty Information Center . . . . R. Dieter, Political Report: Death Row Verdicts and Population Drop, 32 FOCUS/Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, January/February 2004, p. 5. In addition, there seems to be a growing discontent among the states and Congress with the issues of unfairness and inaccuracy that has resulted in more of a regional isolation of the death penalty.1 Id. Further, the specter of executing an innocent person will always shadow the debate over capital punishment. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the year 2003 experienced a record setting number of death row exonerations because of innocence. Indeed, as a result, legislative reform initiatives to reduce the possibility of executing an innocent defendant have taken place in the states of Illinois, North Carolina and New Jersey.2 While capital punishment remains the law in the state of Connecticut, a law the constitutionality of which has been upheld by a majority of this court, I, as one justice who disagrees with that position, believe that we, as a nation, will soon abandon this incredibly costly, frustratingly lengthy and emotionally draining part of our criminal jurisprudence. Accordingly, and more specifically for the reasons set forth in my dissents in previous capital cases, I dissent again. 1 Of the executions that did take place, only three were conducted outside of the South, which accounted for almost 90 percent of the 65 executions in 2003. R. Dieter, supra, p. 5. 2 Congress also has begun to address this concern. The United States House of Representatives recently passed a judicial reform package that addresses funding for DNA testing and more sophisticated legal representation in capital cases. See Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, H.R. Rep. No. 3214, 108th Cong. (2003).
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.
