Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Peeler

June 7, 2016

Summary

The concurrence argues that the court should adhere to its recent constitutional decision because neither the law nor the factual premises have changed, and no special justification supports overruling it. It emphasizes that a change in the court's membership alone cannot justify abandoning precedent, particularly on an issue as important as the constitutionality of the death penalty. Chief Justice Rogers concurs in the majority's disposition on that basis.