State v. Rizzo (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. RIZZO FIRST CONCURRENCE NORCOTT, J., concurring. In accordance with my ongoing position in cases regarding the resolution of issues that implicate the death penalty, but do not result directly in its imposition; see State v. Courchesne, 262 Conn. 537, 583 84, 815 A.2d 1188 (2003) (Norcott, J., concurring); I fully concur and join in the analysis of the majority opinion. Indeed, I particularly agree with the majority s conclusion that the jury must be instructed that, in arriving at its judgment that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors by any degree or amount, it must be persuaded that death is the appropriate penalty in the case, and that its level of certitude in arriving at that ultimate weighing judgment must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, although I [will] continue to dissent from decisions of this court that ultimately conclude that the death penalty can be administered in accordance with the principles of fundamental fairness set forth in our state s constitution ; State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 447, 824 A.2d 778 (2003) (Norcott, J., dissenting); until this state joins those jurisdictions that have abolished or imposed moratoria upon the imposition of the death penalty; id., 448 49 (Norcott, J., dissenting); I also support procedural safeguards that reflect the nature of this ultimate penalty, the need for reliability and consistency in its imposition, and the nature of the requisite jury verdict. I agree, therefore, with the majority s analysis and will address, together with the other justices of this court, the defendant s more general challenges to the imposition of the death penalty after the penalty phase hearing, if and when such challenges are brought. State v. Courchesne, supra, 584 (Norcott, J., concurring).
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.
