In re William D. (concurring)
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. ****************************************************** IN RE WILLIAM D. CONCURRENCE ZARELLA, J., concurring. I concur in the reasoning and the result that the majority reaches. I do not agree, however, with the majority s reliance on this court s statement in State v. Lutters, 270 Conn. 198, 853 A.2d 434 (2004), that courts do not apply the rule of lenity unless a reasonable doubt persists about a statute s intended scope even after resort to the language and structure, legislative history, and motivating policies of the statute. (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 219. For all of the reasons that I expressed in my concurrence in Lutters; id., 221 24 (Zarella, J., concurring); I do not believe that it is appropriate to resort to the legislative history of a criminal statute to resolve ambiguities prior to applying the rule of lenity. Nevertheless, because the majority resolves any ambiguity in General Statutes ยง 46b-141 (b) without resorting to the legislative history, I concur in its reasoning and the result that it reaches.
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.
