State v. Kruelski

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Kruelski

719 A.2d 1170, 247 Conn. 925, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 410

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided October 22, 1998·No. SC 16029·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 49 Conn. App. 553 (AC 16967), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant’s prosecution was not barred by the double jeopardy clause of the federal constitution?”

NORCOTT and KATZ, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

G. Douglas Nash, public defender, in support of the petition. Robert L. Marconi, assistant attorney general, in opposition. Decided October 22, 1998

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, 49 Conn. App. 553 (AC 16967), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant’s prosecution was not barred by the double jeopardy clause of the federal constitution?”

NORCOTT and KATZ, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

G. Douglas Nash, public defender, in support of the petition. Robert L. Marconi, assistant attorney general, in opposition. Decided October 22, 1998

State v. Kruelski, 719 A.2d 1170, 247 Conn. 925, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 410 (Colo. 1998).

Pincite

719 A.2d 1170 (State v. Kruelski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related