Title: State v. Taveras (Second Concurrence)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC20496
State: Connecticut
Issuer: Connecticut Supreme Court
Date: March 29, 2022

*********************************************** 
The “officially released” date that appears near the be-
ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-
lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 
released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-
ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 
and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 
date appearing in the opinion. 
 
All opinions are subject to modification and technical 
correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 
Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 
discrepancies between the advance release version of an 
opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 
be considered authoritative. 
 
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 
opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 
bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 
be reproduced and distributed without the express written 
permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica-
tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 
*********************************************** 
STATE v. TAVERAS—SECOND CONCURRENCE
D’AURIA, J., with whom McDONALD, J., joins, con-
curring. Although I agree with much of the analysis and
reasoning of the majority’s opinion, I would eschew a
true threats analysis in this case. Instead, I am con-
vinced by the approach of Judge Elgo’s dissenting opin-
ion in the Appellate Court. See State v. Taveras, 183
Conn. App. 354, 382–92, 193 A.3d 561 (2018) (Elgo, J.,
dissenting). For thesame reasons contained in hercogent
dissenting opinion, I would reverse the Appellate Court’s
judgment and remand the case to that court, as the
majority does. Accordingly, I respectfully concur.