State v. Zubrowski
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. CASMIER ZUBROWSKI (SC 17942) Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Zarella and Schaller, Js. Argued September 18 officially released October 21, 2008 Daniel J. Krisch, special public defender, with whom were Kenneth J. Bartschi and, on the brief, Philip C. Pires, certified legal intern, for the appellant (defendant). Rita M. Shair, senior assistant state s attorney, with whom were Scott J. Murphy, state s attorney, and, on the brief, Kevin Murphy, senior assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Casmier Zubrowski, appeals, following our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming his conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a.1 State v. Zubrowski, 101 Conn. App. 379, 921 A.2d 667 (2007). On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant claimed that the trial court improperly had (1) denied his motion to suppress statements he had made to police, (2) instructed the jury as to the effects of medication and alcohol on his ability to form the specific intent to kill2 and (3) admitted evidence of his prior misconduct. The Appellate Court rejected those claims in a comprehensive opinion. Id., 388, 392, 396. We subsequently granted the defendant s petition for certification limited to the following issue: Did the Appellate Court improperly hold that the admission of an oral statement made by the defendant, while being subjected to custodial interrogation by a Bristol police officer, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? State v. Zubrowski, 283 Conn. 912, 928 A.2d 539 (2007). On appeal to this court, the defendant claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the admission of his statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the state expressly had relied on that statement to prove his intent to kill and the other evidence establishing that intent was not overwhelming. 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 in relevant part: A person is guilty of murder when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person . . . . 2 An individual s intoxication may negate the specific intent to violate § 53a-54a. State v. Austin, 244 Conn. 226, 239, 710 A.2d 732 (1998) ( [w]hile intoxication is neither a defense nor an affirmative defense to a murder charge in Connecticut, evidence of a defendant s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder [internal quotation marks omitted]).
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.
