State v. Miranda
Connecticut Supreme Court
878 A.2d 1118 (2005)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Santos Miranda (defendant) lived with his teenage girlfriend and her two-year-old son and infant daughter. Miranda was neither child’s biological father or legal stepfather. Miranda had, however, established a familial relationship with them, took care of the children, and considered himself to be the children’s stepfather. Miranda called 911 when the infant daughter was choking, and the child was brought to the hospital with obvious injuries. The child was found to have suffered severe and repeated abuse, including broken ribs, skull fractures, nerve damage, and hemorrhages. Upon investigation, the mother was found to have inflicted the injuries. Miranda was charged with creating a risk of injury to a child and first-degree assault for failure to protect the child. After trial court proceedings and previous appeals, Miranda was convicted. Upon appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that Miranda could be convicted of assault in the first degree for failing to protect the child from abuse by her mother, based on a common-law responsibility to protect the child that arose from his familial relationship with the mother and child. Upon remand to the trial court, Miranda was resentenced to 30 years. Miranda appealed again, alleging that the supreme court should reverse its previous ruling that Miranda could be convicted of assault for failure to protect the child from her mother.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Concurrence (Vertefeuille, J.)
Dissent (Katz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.