State v. Castillo

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Castillo

150 A.3d 684, 323 Conn. 903, 2016 Conn. LEXIS 267

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided September 13, 2016·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 165 Conn.App. 703, 140 A.3d 301 (2016), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the defendant was not in custody for Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), purposes during his in-home interrogation by the police?

"3. Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that it was inappropriate or premature for that court to consider the defendant's supervisory claim?"

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, 165 Conn.App. 703, 140 A.3d 301 (2016), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the defendant was not in custody for Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478-79, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), purposes during his in-home interrogation by the police?

"3. Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that it was inappropriate or premature for that court to consider the defendant's supervisory claim?"

State v. Castillo, 150 A.3d 684, 323 Conn. 903, 2016 Conn. LEXIS 267 (Colo. 2016).

Pincite

150 A.3d 684 (State v. Castillo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related