¶1concurring. In State v. Miranda, 245 Conn. 209, 715 A.2d 680 (1998), I questioned whether the defendant, Santos Miranda, had fair warning that his failure to act in the particular circumstances of that case fell within the purview of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (3). State v. Miranda, supra, 232(Palmer, J., *133concurring). Subsequent to the issuance of our decision in Mirandaand the issuance of the decision of the Appellate Court in the present case; State v. Miranda, 56 Conn. App. 298, 742 A.2d 1276 (2000); the United States Supreme Court decided Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 121 S. Ct. 1693, 149 L. Ed. 2d 697 (2001), which, for the reasons set forth by the majority, resolves the defendant’s due process claim against him. Because I also agree with the opinion of the majority in all other respects, I join it.
260 Conn. 93
State v. Miranda
Decided April 16, 2002
Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 2002-04-16
Relies on Rogers v. Tennessee · State v. Miranda · State v. Miranda
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2002-04-16
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2022 · most notably State v. Reynolds (2003), State v. Padua (2005)
2 district · 144 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →