Home/Supreme Court of Connecticut/State v. Kruelski

State v. Kruelski

719 A.2d 1170, 247 Conn. 925, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 410
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedOctober 22, 1998
DocketSC 16029
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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

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

Related

State v. Kruelski
737 A.2d 377 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
719 A.2d 1170, 247 Conn. 925, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kruelski-conn-1998.