State v. Graham
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. 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 advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears 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. ROBERT LEE GRAHAM (SC 20153) Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued September 16, 2020—officially released February 4, 2021* Procedural History Substitute information charging the defendant with the crime of murder, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the court, Gold, J., denied in part the defendant’s motions to suppress certain evidence; thereafter, the case was tried to the jury before Gold, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed. Mark Rademacher, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Nancy L. Walker, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, former state’s attorney, and Vicki Melchiorre and Richard Rubin, senior assistant state’s attorneys, for the appellee (state). Opinion PER CURIAM. After this case was argued, defense counsel notified this court that the defendant and appellant, Robert Lee Graham, died while in the custody of the Commissioner of Correction on January 8, 2021. Defense counsel did not request any specific disposition of this appeal as a result of the defendant’s death. Consistent with the past practice of this court, therefore, we dismiss the appeal as moot. E.g., State v. Bostwick, 251 Conn. 117, 118–19, 740 A.2d 381 (1999); State v. Trantolo, 209 Conn. 169, 170, 549 A.2d 1074 (1988); State v. Granata, 162 Conn. 653, 653, 289 A.2d 385 (1972); State v. Raffone, 161 Conn. 117, 120, 285 A.2d 323 (1971); see also Dove v. United States, 423 U.S. 325, 325, 96 S. Ct. 579, 46 L. Ed. 2d 531 (1976) (dismissing petition for writ of certiorari as moot). We leave for another day the question of whether the better course of action in such cases, followed by the majority of our sister courts, would be to vacate the judgment of conviction and to remand with instructions to dismiss the indictment ab initio. See, e.g., United States v. Mollica, 849 F.2d 723, 725–26 (2d Cir. 1988) (vacating judgment of conviction and dismissing indictment as to deceased appellant); State v. Trantolo, supra, 174 (Healey, J., dissenting) (‘‘the great majority of courts that have considered the problem have ruled that death pending appellate review of a criminal conviction abates not only the appeal but also the proceedings had in the prosecution ab initio’’); J. Derrick, ‘‘Abatement Effects of Accused’s Death Before Appellate Review of Federal Criminal Conviction,’’ 80 A.L.R. Fed. 446, 448, § 2 (1986) (stating majority rule). The appeal is dismissed. * February 4, 2021, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.
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.
