State v. DeFrancesco

653 A.2d 823, 231 Conn. 939, 1994 Conn. LEXIS 431

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided December 12, 1994·No. SC 14971X01·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 34 Conn. App. 741 (AC 12700), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the defendant’s conviction for possession of a hybrid bobcat on the ground that General Statutes § 26-40a was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case?”

[940]*940Decided December 12, 1994 Michael J. Graham, in support of the petition. Jack W. Fischer, 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, 34 Conn. App. 741 (AC 12700), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the defendant’s conviction for possession of a hybrid bobcat on the ground that General Statutes § 26-40a was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case?”

[940]*940Decided December 12, 1994 Michael J. Graham, in support of the petition. Jack W. Fischer, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

State v. DeFrancesco, 653 A.2d 823, 231 Conn. 939, 1994 Conn. LEXIS 431 (Colo. 1994).

Pincite

653 A.2d 823 (State v. DeFrancesco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

State v. DeFrancesco

668 A.2d 348 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1995)

Opinion

Related