describing the “‘judicial power . . . vested in this Court . . . as the repository of the judicial power to fashion remedies. In no context is this judicial power to fashion remedies more appropriately exercised than in a criminal case.” (citation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- describing the “‘judicial power . . . vested in this Court . . . as the repository of the judicial power to fashion remedies. In no context is this judicial power to fashion remedies more appropriately exercised than in a criminal case.” (citation omitted)
- implying a statutory duty on the State to notify a defendant of its reliance on particular aggravating factors with the opportunity for the defendant to challenge that showing
- stating that prosecutor’s conduct has been accorded presumption of validity
- “Under the New Jersey Constitution ‘judicial power’ is vested in this Court and all inferior courts. 19 That power has been construed as the repository of the judicial authority to fashion remedies. In no context is this judicial power to fashion remedies more appropriately exercised than in a criminal case.” (citations omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Courchesne, No. Cr98-0273002-T (Nov. 27, 2001), 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 15941-gf (2001)
The defendant's reliance upon the New Jersey case of State v. McCrary, supra, 478 A.2d 339, is inapplicable to Connecticut courts.
The opinion
HANDLER, J.,
concurring in the result.
For modification, affirmance and remandment — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLACK and GARIBALDI — 6.
Dissenting — Justice O’HERN — 1.