Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Saturno
July 19, 2016
Summary
The concurrence agrees that the judgment affirming the defendant's conviction should be affirmed because none of his claims has merit. It separately argues that the court's established framework for analyzing state constitutional claims should be modified because only the state constitutional text, history, and Connecticut precedent are consistently relevant. The concurrence maintains that sister-state precedent and economic or sociological considerations should generally not inform the analysis.