Court Opinion

ID: 9835214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 02:14:06.897693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:59.331551
License: Public Domain

ZARELLA, J., concurring.
  

   I agree with the majority that, because none of the claims raised by the defendant, Donald Saturno, has merit, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. I write separately, however, to reiterate my belief that the approach this court adopted in
   
    State v. Geisler,
   

    222 Conn. 672
   
   , 684-85,
   
    610 A.2d 1225
   
   (1992), for analyzing state constitutional claims requires modification. As I stated in my concurrence in
   
    State v. Skok,
   

    318 Conn. 699
   
   , 724,
   
    122 A.3d 608
   
   (2015), "[i]n my view, only three of the six factors articulated in
   
    Geisler
   
   -the text of our constitution, state constitutional history, and Connecticut precedent-are consistently relevant. The other three factors vary in their relevance. Although there may be occasions when federal case law illuminates the meaning of provisions in our state constitution, I believe the precedent of our sister states and economic and sociological considerations rarely, if ever,
   are useful for this purpose."
   
    Id., at 725
   
   ,
   
    122 A.3d 608
   
   (
   
    Zarella, J.,
   
   concurring).
  

   In the present case, the majority correctly concludes that neither the text of the state constitution, its history, nor our precedent supports the defendant's claim under article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution. The
   majority nevertheless proceeds to consider the case law of other jurisdictions, as well as economic and sociological concerns, which I believe should play no role in our resolution of the defendant's claim. Accordingly, I respectfully concur.