State v. Arline

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Arline

598 A.2d 364, 220 Conn. 924, 1991 Conn. LEXIS 471

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedOctober 9, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 598 A.2d 364 (State v. Arline) 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. Arline, 598 A.2d 364, 220 Conn. 924, 1991 Conn. LEXIS 471 (Colo. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 25 Conn. App. 653, is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the defendant’s right to the effective assistance of coun[925]*925sel under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution was not abridged by the trial court’s ruling regarding the scope of the defendant’s final argument?

Thomas Ullman, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. James M. Ralls, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided October 9, 1991

“2. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination under the fifth amendment to the United States constitution was not abridged by the state’s statement in final argument: ‘What motive does George Arline have to come and deny it?’ ”

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, 25 Conn. App. 653, is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the defendant’s right to the effective assistance of coun[925]*925sel under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution was not abridged by the trial court’s ruling regarding the scope of the defendant’s final argument?

Thomas Ullman, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. James M. Ralls, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided October 9, 1991

“2. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination under the fifth amendment to the United States constitution was not abridged by the state’s statement in final argument: ‘What motive does George Arline have to come and deny it?’ ”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

598 A.2d 364, 220 Conn. 924, 1991 Conn. LEXIS 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-arline-conn-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack