State v. Sandoval (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. ****************************************************** STATE v. SANDOVAL CONCURRENCE SULLIVAN, C. J., concurring. I concur in the judgment and agree with the majority s reasoning with regard to parts I, II and IV. In addition, with respect to part III of the majority opinion, I agree that the trial court properly rejected the motion of the defendant, Edwin Sandoval, for judgment of acquittal on the charges of attempt to commit aggravated sexual assault in the first degree and attempt to commit assault in the first degree. Specifically, I agree with the majority s conclusion that the jury reasonably could have concluded that the defendant attempted to assault the victim with the intent to destroy . . . or disable permanently a member . . . of [her] body, because a five week old fetus is a member of the victim s body for purposes of General Statutes §§ 53a-59 (a) (2) and 53a-70a (a) (2). I write separately only to emphasize that the mere fact that we have determined that a fetus, under the circumstances of this case, is a member of a woman s body for purposes of §§ 53a-59 (a) (2) and 53a-70a (a) (2) does not suggest that either the majority or I have concluded that a fetus may not have its own independent existence. In other words, the fetus may both be a part of its mother as well as its own individual being. Indeed, this property is among the unique characteristics of a fetus that make it truly sui generis. The fact that a fetus has exceptional attributes that may entitle it to legal protections in its own right, however, does not mean that a fetus is not also a member of a woman s body. Therefore, I agree with the majority that, under the circumstances of this case, the fetus is a member of a woman s body. Accordingly, I concur.
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.
