STATE v. NELSON (1999)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

STATE of Connecticut v. Malik NELSON.

No. 16838.

Decided: February 09, 1999

Before EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL, C.J., and SPEAR and DUPONT, JJ.

Richard E. Condon, Jr., deputy assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Margaret Gaffney Radionovas, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and James R. Dinnan, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

The defendant appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree¹ and carrying a pistol without a permit.² The sole issue claimed on appeal is that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that “reasonable doubt” is not a doubt suggested by the “ingenuity of counsel.”

The defendant relies on State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 504, 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121, 117 S.Ct. 2515, 138 L.Ed.2d 1017 (1997), in which our Supreme Court, acting under its supervisory powers, urged trial courts to avoid further use of the “ingenuity of counsel” instruction. After we heard oral argument in the present case, the Supreme Court decided State v. Edwards, 247 Conn. 318, 721 A.2d 519 (1998), in which it held that the admonition in Taylor was not applicable where the trial court had instructed the jury prior to the date of the Taylor decision. The trial in the present case took place in September, 1996, and Taylor was not decided until December, 1996. Edwards, therefore, is controlling.

The judgment is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1. General Statutes § 53a-55 (a)(1).

2. General Statutes § 29-35(a).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network