349 Conn. 783
Conn.2024Background
- Robert Honsch was convicted of murdering his daughter, Elizabeth, whose body was found in New Britain, Connecticut in 1995—her identity unknown for nearly 20 years.
- Police found Elizabeth's remains wrapped in her father’s property (sleeping bags, trash bags) and collected forensic evidence, including palm prints and hair samples.
- Around the time of the body’s discovery, Honsch claimed to family that his wife and daughter left the country, but both were later found dead (wife’s body in Massachusetts).
- In 2014, DNA and palm print evidence gathered from Honsch in Ohio tied him to the Connecticut crime scene. He was previously convicted of his wife’s murder in Massachusetts.
- Honsch moved to dismiss the Connecticut case for lack of territorial jurisdiction, arguing it was unknown where the murder occurred; trial court denied this based on a presumption that a homicide occurred where the body was found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Territorial jurisdiction—location of murder | State applies presumption: body found in CT = jurisdiction | Honsch: State failed to prove murder happened in CT; presumption improper | Permissive presumption applies; CT had jurisdiction |
| Sufficiency of evidence identifying perpetrator | Forensic and circumstantial evidence, plus guilt behavior | Honsch: Evidence (e.g. palm prints) insufficient, could be explained | Evidence sufficient: combination of forensics and conduct |
| Jury instruction re: fingerprint/palm print evidence | Jury charge not warranted by circumstances | Honsch: Jury needed special instruction, as prints not dispositive | Not required; palm prints not sole/principal evidence |
| Presumption’s constitutionality/due process | Permissive presumption is procedural, not a substantive crime element | Honsch: Presumption shifts burden, violates due process | No constitutional violation; presumption is procedural |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cardwell, 246 Conn. 721 (territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases defined by acts or results in-state)
- State v. Beverly, 224 Conn. 372 (territorial jurisdiction for murder is a question for the court, not an element for the jury)
- State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231 (location of death not an element of the crime of murder in Connecticut)
- State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183 (jurisdiction when criminal act and result cross state borders)
- State v. Santangelo, 205 Conn. 578 (special jury instructions on fingerprint evidence appropriate only if such evidence is principal connection to crime)