State v. Salgado

257 Conn. 394 (2001) · Supreme Court of Connecticut · August 14, 2001

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that when a jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict on a greater charged offense, and the trial court declares a mistrial on that offense, the court must also declare a mistrial on a separately charged lesser included offense. The court concluded that allowing deliberations to continue on the lesser offense violated the acquittal-first principles articulated in State v. Sawyer and risked compromise verdicts and double-jeopardy concerns. The judgment of conviction for first-degree manslaughter was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Court
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the Court
Vertefeuille, J.
Jurisdiction
Connecticut
Decision date
August 14, 2001
Procedural posture
The defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction of manslaughter in the first degree. The appeal was transferred from the Appellate Court to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the legal question concerning the proper jury instruction and the required disposition of the lesser included offense de novo.
Precedential value
Published Connecticut Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Eliser Salgado v. State
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

criminal procedurejury instructionsdouble jeopardyappellate procedurepreservation of error

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedurecriminal law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether, when the state charges a defendant with a greater offense and a lesser included offense in separate counts, and the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the greater offense, the trial court must declare a mistrial as to both counts rather than permit deliberation on the lesser included offense.
  2. Whether the trial court improperly refused to instruct the jury to consider whether the defendant acted in self-defense.

Holdings

  1. When the state charges a defendant with a greater offense and a lesser included offense in separate counts, and the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict on the greater offense, the trial court must declare a mistrial as to both the greater and lesser included offenses. The court may not permit the jury to deliberate on the lesser included offense after declaring a mistrial on the greater offense.

Key quotations

Accordingly, we hold that where the state has charged the defendant with two offenses, one of which is a lesser included offense of the other, and the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the greater offense charged, the trial court must declare a mistrial as to both the greater and the lesser included offenses. (405)
The lesser included offense doctrine is more than a mere procedural guideline for trial courts to follow. (407)

Factual background

Salgado sold heroin to Isidro Torres and Roberto Torres at a Hartford apartment building. After a dispute over the amount of money paid, a struggle occurred, and Salgado retrieved a gun and shot Isidro Torres in the arm as the men fled. Torres later died from the gunshot wound.

Procedural history

The state charged Salgado with murder and manslaughter in the first degree in separate counts. After the jury reported that it was deadlocked on the murder count, the trial court declared a mistrial on that count but directed the jury to deliberate on the manslaughter count, resulting in a guilty verdict. The trial court denied Salgado's motions for a mistrial on both counts and for a new trial, and rendered judgment on the manslaughter conviction. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Remand instructions

The judgment of conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…