State v. Angell

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Angell

655 A.2d 259, 232 Conn. 915, 1995 Conn. LEXIS 86

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedFebruary 22, 1995

DocketSC 15206

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 655 A.2d 259 (State v. Angell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Angell, 655 A.2d 259, 232 Conn. 915, 1995 Conn. LEXIS 86 (Colo. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 36 Conn. App. 383 (AC 12359), is granted, limited to the following issues:

[916]*916Decided February 22, 1995 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15206. R. Jeffrey Lyman, Patricia E. McCooey and Linda L. Morkan, in support of the petition. Pamela S. Meotti, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

“1. Whether the Appellate Court was correct in concluding that the defendant’s federal constitutional rights of confrontation were not violated when the trial court admitted into evidence constancy of accusation testimony.

“2. Whether the Appellate Court was correct in concluding that the defendant’s exception to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the credibility of a child witness was inadequate to preserve the issue for appeal.”

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

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 36 Conn. App. 383 (AC 12359), is granted, limited to the following issues:

[916]*916Decided February 22, 1995 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15206. R. Jeffrey Lyman, Patricia E. McCooey and Linda L. Morkan, in support of the petition. Pamela S. Meotti, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

“1. Whether the Appellate Court was correct in concluding that the defendant’s federal constitutional rights of confrontation were not violated when the trial court admitted into evidence constancy of accusation testimony.

“2. Whether the Appellate Court was correct in concluding that the defendant’s exception to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the credibility of a child witness was inadequate to preserve the issue for appeal.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

655 A.2d 259, 232 Conn. 915, 1995 Conn. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-angell-conn-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack