Eubanks v. Comm'r of Corr.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Eubanks v. Comm'r of Corr.

149 A.3d 980, 323 Conn. 911, 2016 Conn. LEXIS 284

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided September 20, 2016·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Deren Manasevit, assigned counsel, in opposition.

The respondent's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 166 Conn. App. 1, 140 A.3d 402 (2016), is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the habeas court incorrectly rendered judgment for the respondent on the petitioner's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to portions of the testimony of Tanika McCotter in a transcript admitted under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, on the ground that they were 'double hearsay'?"

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Deren Manasevit, assigned counsel, in opposition.

The respondent's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 166 Conn. App. 1, 140 A.3d 402 (2016), is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the habeas court incorrectly rendered judgment for the respondent on the petitioner's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to portions of the testimony of Tanika McCotter in a transcript admitted under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, on the ground that they were 'double hearsay'?"

Eubanks v. Comm'r of Corr., 149 A.3d 980, 323 Conn. 911, 2016 Conn. LEXIS 284 (Colo. 2016).

Pincite

149 A.3d 980 (Eubanks v. Comm'r of Corr.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related