State v. Golding

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Golding

548 A.2d 439, 209 Conn. 801, 1988 Conn. LEXIS 279

DecidedSeptember 20, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 548 A.2d 439 (State v. Golding) 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. Golding, 548 A.2d 439, 209 Conn. 801, 1988 Conn. LEXIS 279 (Colo. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 14 Conn. App. 272, is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Where, in a prosecution for general assistance fraud (Section 17-282) the jury was never instructed concerning a finding of ‘the amount involved,’ did the Appellate Court err in refusing to reverse the defendant’s conviction on the ground of the lack of such an instruction and did it err in refusing to review the defendant’s claim that under the United States and Connecticut constitutions ‘the amount [802]*802involved,’ is necessarily an essential element of the offense since it determines whether the offense is a misdemeanor or a crime as serious as a class B felony?”

Joseph G. Bruckman, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. Mary H. Lesser, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided September 20, 1988

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, 14 Conn. App. 272, is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Where, in a prosecution for general assistance fraud (Section 17-282) the jury was never instructed concerning a finding of ‘the amount involved,’ did the Appellate Court err in refusing to reverse the defendant’s conviction on the ground of the lack of such an instruction and did it err in refusing to review the defendant’s claim that under the United States and Connecticut constitutions ‘the amount [802]*802involved,’ is necessarily an essential element of the offense since it determines whether the offense is a misdemeanor or a crime as serious as a class B felony?”

Joseph G. Bruckman, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. Mary H. Lesser, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided September 20, 1988

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 A.2d 439, 209 Conn. 801, 1988 Conn. LEXIS 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-golding-conn-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack