State v. Ray (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. RAY SECOND CONCURRENCE AND DISSENT PALMER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. I agree with the majority insofar as it reverses the conviction of the defendant, Quentin T. Ray, on five counts of sale of narcotics by a non-drug-dependent person under General Statutes § 21a-278 (b). In my view, however, the interests of judicial economy militate in favor of seeking supplemental briefs from the parties on the issue of whether the trial court should render a judgment of conviction on those five counts for the lesser included offense of sale of narcotics under General Statutes § 21a-277 (b). The state undoubtedly will seek that relief in a motion for reconsideration, as it recently has done following this court s decision in State v. Sanseverino, 287 Conn. 608, 949 A.2d 1156 (2008),1 and I see no reason why we should not address and resolve the issue in this opinion rather than waiting to do so in a subsequent opinion. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority opinion to the extent that the majority declines to seek supplemental briefs from the parties on the issue of whether the state is entitled to have the trial court render a judgment of conviction on five counts of sale of narcotics under § 21a-277 (b). 1 On July 10, 2008, the state filed a motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, reconsideration en banc, of this court s decision in Sanseverino. Our decision on that motion is pending.
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.
