Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Robert
COURCHESNE
Classification: Murderer
Characteristics: Drug
debt
Number of victims: 1 + 1
Date of murder:
September 15,
1998
Date of birth: 1963
Victims profile: Demetris Rodgers (8 months pregnant - the baby died 42 days later)
Robert Courchesne
was convicted of capital felony by a three-judge panel in
the Sept. 15, 1998, deaths of Demetris Rodgers and her baby. Rodgers was
eight months pregnant when she was stabbed over a $410 drug debt. Her
baby was delivered by emergency Caesarean section minutes after her
death, but died 42 days later.
"Police said Courchesne owed Rodgers the money for
crack cocaine, and he lured her to a Waterbury, Connecticut bank under
the guise of getting cash. Instead, he stabbed Rodgers and left her
bloody body in the middle of the street.
Courchesne read a statement in court Thursday. He
spoke in a slow, staccato voice, blaming his actions on his crack
cocaine habit, the Republican-American of Waterbury, Connecticut
reported in Friday's editions. "When you're high it changes you into a
nasty, greedy monster," Courchesne said. "Now I have to pay for being
that monster."
Robert Courchesne—white,
age 41
Sentenced to death in
Waterbury County, Connecticut
By: A jury
Date of crime: 9/15/98
Prosecution’s case/defense
response: Victim Demetris Rogers was haranguing Courchesne to pay her
for crack cocaine she had supplied him earlier in the day when he
stabbed her multiple times and left her to die in the street. Rogers was
nine months pregnant—the baby was surgically delivered and survived for
42 days before succumbing due to lack of oxygen during the time her
mother was dying. The death of the baby accounted for a second murder
conviction against Courchesne. The defense did not contest guilt, but
argued that Courchesne had lived a good life before he had developed his
drug habit, and that the victim had in part provoked the attack through
her illegal drug dealing. (Note: This is an unusual case where a white
defendant received a death sentence for killing black victims.)
Prosecutor(s): John
Connelly
Defense lawyer(s): Ronald Gold, Kenneth Simon
Connecticut man sentenced to death
for killing pregnant woman
WATERBURY, Connecticut -- A Waterbury, Connecticut
man became the eighth person on Connecticut's death row Thursday when he
was sentenced to die by lethal injection for killing a pregnant woman
and her baby.
Superior Court Judge Frank M. D'Addabbo, acting on a
recommendation made by a jury last month, sentenced 46-year-old Robert
Courchesne to death.
Courchesne was convicted of capital felony by a three-judge
panel two years ago in the Sept. 15, 1998, deaths of Demetris Rodgers
and her baby. Rodgers was eight months pregnant when she was stabbed
over a $410 drug debt, prosecutors said. Her baby, Antonia, was
delivered by emergency Caesarean section minutes after her death, but
died 42 days later.
Police said Courchesne owed Rodgers the money for
crack cocaine, and he lured her to a Waterbury, Connecticut bank under
the guise of getting cash. Instead, he stabbed Rodgers and left her
bloody body in the middle of the street.
Courchesne read a statement in court Thursday. He
spoke in a slow, staccato voice, blaming his actions on his crack
cocaine habit, the Republican-American of Waterbury, Connecticut
reported in Friday's editions.
"When you're high it changes you into a nasty, greedy
monster," Courchesne said. "Now I have to pay for being that monster."
"It was never my intention for this to happen,"
Courchesne said. "If I could turn back the clock or take their place, I
would."
Rodgers' cousin, Beulah Gardner, spoke on the
family's behalf at the sentencing hearing.
"Your death will be nothing compared to the death
sentence you handed down on Demetris and Antonia," Gardner said. "Your
death will be painless and short. Demetris' death was painful and long.
When Courchesne spoke, Rodgers' mother, Margie,
stared at him with a seemingly impenetrable gaze as he turned to face
her.
"I didn't want him looking at me," she said.
D'Addabbo set an execution date of May 14, but the
sentence isn't expected to be carried out for years. Connecticut has not
executed anyone since 1960, when Joseph "Mad Dog" Taborsky went to the
electric chair for a murder and robbery spree.
Courchesne will be granted an automatic stay of
execution when his lawyer file his mandatory appeal. The case will
likely be tied up in courts for years.
Six of the state's eight death row inmates were
prosecuted in Waterbury, Connecticut. The last to receive a death
sentence was Ivo Colon, who brutally beat 2-year-old Keriana Tellado to
death in 1998.
Before Thursday's hearing began, Public Defenders
Ronald Gold and Kenneth Simon tried unsuccessfully to get Courchesne a
new trial, or a life sentence. Gold and Simon filed five motions Monday
in an attempt to spare Courchesne the death penalty.
Most of the motions are routine filings in a death
penalty case. All of the requests were denied Thursday, but will form
the basis of Courchesne's mandatory appeal.
Gold said he will file that appeal before the state
Supreme Court within the next 20 days.
The attorneys first argued that D'Addabbo should set
aside the jury's verdict and impose a life sentence because there was
insufficient evidence of aggravating factors that led jurors to
recommend death.
Citing about a dozen trial court errors, the
attorneys asked that Courchesne be granted a new penalty trial.
Arguing the death penalty was being arbitrarily
imposed on Courchesne, the attorneys drew on another murder case
involving a pregnant woman. They cited the case of Michael Latour, a
Danielson man convicted Thursday afternoon of murder in the shooting
death of his pregnant ex-girlfriend, Jenny McMechen. He faces 60 years
in prison.
Like Rodgers, McMechen died about a month shy of her
due date. But McMechen's baby died in her womb. Because Antonia Rodgers
was born, Waterbury, Connecticut State's Attorney John Connelly was able
to charge Courchesne with capital felony murder for killing two people.
"We have two defendants who did basically the same
thing," Gold said. "One is getting a death sentence and the other isn't
exposed to a death sentence. I can't think of something more arbitrary
than that."
Connelly called Gold's argument "absurd."
"The fact is that the reason Mr. Courchesne was
charged, convicted of capital felony murder and sentenced to die this
morning was because he murdered two people. He murdered Demetris Rodgers
and he murdered Antonia Rodgers."
Death Row Inmate Appeals Sentence
Courchesne Convicted In Pregnant Woman's Death
WFSD.com
March 19, 2008
HARTFORD, Conn.
--A man on death row for murdering a pregnant woman has brought his
case to the state Supreme Court.
Robert Courchesne is appealing to the state Supreme
Court a decade after the murder.
Lawyers for Courchesne claim that mistakes made at
trial should force a new penalty hearing.
Courchesne was convicted of the 1998 stabbing death
of Demetris Rogers. Rogers was pregnant at the time and her child was
delivered prematurely. The baby died 42 days later.
Prosecutors said the killing was over a $400 drug
debt.
Courchesne's attorney argued to the Supreme Court on
Wednesday that the death sentence should be overturned because of errors
made by prosecutors and the judge.
"We feel that there was a reasonable chance that the
trial court's errors impacted the jury and this court should reverse,"
said defense attorney John Holdridge.
Channel 3 Eyewitness News reporter Eric Parker
reported that the bulk of Wednesday's arguments centered on whether
jurors were improperly affected by prosecution statements at trial,
particularly that life in prison may not be a tough enough sentence.
"Court after court has held that this is improper
evidence and it should not be considered during deliberations,"
Holdridge said.
The state argued that if any errors were made, they
weren't serious enough to warrant ordering a new trial, especially in
light of the crime committed.
"Not only did he intend to murder her, but he
intended to inflict excruciating pain beyond that needed to kill," said
Assistant State's Attorney Robert Scheinblum.
Parker reported that Wednesday marked the second time
the case went before the Supreme Court. In 2003, justices upheld the
lower court's guilty verdict.
STATE v. ROBERT COURCHESNE, SC 17174
Judicial District of Waterbury
Criminal; Death Penalty; Whether Unborn Child is a "Person"; Whether
Defendant Intended to Murder Unborn Child; If Common Law "Born Alive"
Rule Applies, whether Child was born "Alive"; Whether Capital
Punishment Scheme gives Unfettered Discretion to Prosecutors to Seek a
Sentence of Death; Whether State v. Courchesne, 262 Conn.
537 (2003), was Overruled in its Entirety by General Statutes § 1-2z.
The defendant was convicted of murder and capital felony murder in
connection with the stabbing of a mother and her unborn child. The
mother died shortly after being stabbed. The child was born by
emergency cesarean section and placed on life support. She died forty-two
days later when she was removed from life support. Prior to the
defendant's penalty phase hearing, the trial court ruled that, in order
for the death penalty to be imposed, the state had to prove the
aggravating factor that it indicated that it would rely on - that the
defendant had committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or
depraved manner - as to the murders of both victims. In an interlocutory
appeal by the state, the Supreme Court held that the state was required
only to prove that the defendant killed one of the victims in an
especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner. In a separate portion of
its opinion, the court discussed its approach to statutory construction
and stated that it would ordinarily consider all relevant sources of
meaning of a statute without first having to determine whether the
language at issue is ambiguous. State v. Courchesne, 262
Conn. 537 (2003). Subsequently, at the penalty phase hearing, a jury of
twelve found that the defendant had committed the murder of the mother
in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner. He was thereupon
sentenced to death for her murder and to life imprisonment without the
possibility of release for the murder of the child. On appeal, the
defendant has raised numerous issues relating to his convictions and
sentence of death. Among the specific issues he has raised are: (1)
Should the trial court have dismissed the counts alleging murder of an
unborn child because an unborn fetus is not legally a "person" and, even
if the unborn fetus was a person, the defendant lacked the requisite
intent to kill her? (2) If the trial court correctly ruled that someone
who injures an unborn fetus can be prosecuted for murder if the fetus is
subsequently born alive and then dies, was there sufficient evidence
presented to show that the child was alive when the cesarean section was
performed? (3) Should the trial court have granted the defendant's
motion to impose a life sentence without release where the defendant
argues that Connecticut's capital punishment scheme gives prosecutors
unfettered and standardless discretion to seek a sentence of death, that
such discretion is unconstitutional under both the federal and state
constitutions, and that such discretion violates General Statutes §
53a-46b (b) (1), which states that a death sentence shall be affirmed
unless it was "the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary
factor"? and (4) Should the trial court have instructed the jury that
for the death penalty to be imposed for the capital felony of murder of
two or more persons in the course of a single transaction and where the
state has alleged the aggravating factor of the offense's being "especially
heinous, cruel or depraved" under General Statutes § 53a-46a (i) (4),
the state must prove that factor as to both victims? With regard
to the latter issue, the defendant claims that by enacting General
Statutes § 1-2z (the "plain meaning rule"), the legislature overruled
State v. Courchesne, supra, in its entirety. He thus
contends that he is entitled to a new penalty phase hearing at which the
jury will be instructed that the state must prove the aggravating factor
as to both victims.
