State v. Lopez
Connecticut Supreme Court
889 A.2d 254 (2006)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Cecile Lawrence was a security guard at the University of Bridgeport who was walking to work at night. Lawrence heard someone approaching her from behind and turned around to see Clifton Kennedy and Albert Lopez (defendants). Kennedy was obviously agitated and ordered Lawrence to give him her money, repeatedly saying “give me your money or I’ll do you right here.” Lawrence told Kennedy that she didn’t have any money, and she was afraid that Kennedy was going to shoot her. Kennedy pulled on the backpack that Lawrence was wearing, pinning Lawrence’s arms behind her back. Lopez then rummaged through Lawrence’s pockets. Lopez did not find any money on Lawrence and told Kennedy so. Kennedy and Lopez took Lawrence’s backpack and told her to walk away without looking back at them. Kennedy threatened Lawrence again, stating “do no turn around or I’ll do you.” Kenney and Lopez were eventually apprehended and convicted of first-degree robbery, among other crimes. They appealed, alleging among other claims that the evidence was insufficient to support a first-degree robbery conviction because the jury could not have reasonably concluded that Kennedy conveyed the threatened use of a firearm through his words or conduct.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dranginis, J.)
Dissent (Lavery, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
