State of Connecticut v. Daniel B. — Ecker, J., Dissenting

Summary

Ecker, J., dissenting, would have concluded that the defendant's conversations with an intermediary and an undercover hitman constituted criminal solicitation and preliminary planning, but not a substantial step toward attempted murder. The dissent reasoned that the defendant took no substantial action strongly corroborative of criminal purpose, such as paying money, conducting surveillance, furnishing a weapon, or otherwise implementing the plan. Ecker, J., would have reversed the judgment upholding the attempted-murder conviction because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law.