State v. Bletsch

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Bletsch

866 A.2d 1288, 272 Conn. 918, 2005 Conn. LEXIS 33

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided January 20, 2005·No. SC 17340·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 86 Conn. App. 186 (AC 24260), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for exemption from the sex offender registry?

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant’s convictions for sexual assault in the second degree and risk of injury to a child did not constitute double jeopardy?”

*919 Decided January 20, 2005 Eileen F. McCarthy, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

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, 86 Conn. App. 186 (AC 24260), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for exemption from the sex offender registry?

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant’s convictions for sexual assault in the second degree and risk of injury to a child did not constitute double jeopardy?”

*919 Decided January 20, 2005 Eileen F. McCarthy, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

State v. Bletsch, 866 A.2d 1288, 272 Conn. 918, 2005 Conn. LEXIS 33 (Colo. 2005).

Pincite

866 A.2d 1288 (State v. Bletsch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related