State v. Gonzalez

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Gonzalez

526 A.2d 535, 11 Conn. App. 805, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 977

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 1, 1987

Docket4923

StatusPublished

This text of 526 A.2d 535 (State v. Gonzalez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Gonzalez, 526 A.2d 535, 11 Conn. App. 805, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 977 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, of larceny in the fifth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125 (a), criminal mischief in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-116, possession of burglar’s tools in violation of General Statutes § 53a-106, and burglary in the third degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-103 and 53a-8. He claims that the court erred (1) in denying his motions to suppress and to dismiss, and (2) in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, which was based on a claim of insufficiency [806]*806of evidence. We have fully reviewed his claims. We conclude (1) that the motions to suppress and dismiss were properly denied, because the police had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the defendant’s car, and (2) that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, of larceny in the fifth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125 (a), criminal mischief in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-116, possession of burglar’s tools in violation of General Statutes § 53a-106, and burglary in the third degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-103 and 53a-8. He claims that the court erred (1) in denying his motions to suppress and to dismiss, and (2) in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, which was based on a claim of insufficiency [806]*806of evidence. We have fully reviewed his claims. We conclude (1) that the motions to suppress and dismiss were properly denied, because the police had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the defendant’s car, and (2) that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

526 A.2d 535, 11 Conn. App. 805, 1987 Conn. App. LEXIS 977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gonzalez-connappct-1987.