CGS § 53a-46b. Review of death sentence.

Cited. 212 C. 258. Does not violate prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment nor infringe on due process rights. 230 C. 183. Cited. 235 C. 206; 237 C. 332. Death penalty unconstitutional under Art. I, Secs. 8 and 9 of Connecticut Constitution. 318 C. 1.

Cited. 9 CA 686.

Subsec. (b):

Class of similar cases to include all convictions of a capital felony after October 1, 1973, resulting from a trial or from a plea whether or not convictions were followed by imposition of death penalty. 225 C. 559. Prohibition against disproportionality discussed. 234 C. 735. Court concluded that statutory proportionality review scheme is constitutional and that it involves the precedent seeking method of comparative, rather than traditional, proportionality review. 238 C. 389. Court stayed proceedings pending review. 272 C. 674. Subsec. does not create nonwaivable right to mandatory sentence review by Connecticut Supreme Court of any and all claims that death sentence was “the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor”, regardless of the time and manner in which claim was raised; court is not required to impose moratorium on execution of death sentences whenever an unproven claim of systemic arbitrariness in administration of death penalty scheme is raised. Id., 676. Defendant's claim that his death sentence was imposed arbitrarily and capriciously because there are no uniform standards guiding prosecutors' decisions to seek the death penalty is contradicted by overwhelming authority and is rejected. 303 C. 71. Jury could reasonably have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole aggravating factor outweighed the numerous mitigating factors and therefore the jury's sentencing verdict was not unreasonable and the sentence was not the product of passion, prejudice or other arbitrary factor. 305 C. 101, but see 318 C. 1.