State v. Lane

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Lane

426 A.2d 297, 179 Conn. 327, 1979 Conn. LEXIS 964

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided December 11, 1979·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In State v. Branham, 171 Conn. 12, 368 A.2d 63 (1976), we held that in the absence of controlling statutory provisions¹ an accused is not entitled to an instruction to the jury that no adverse inferences are to be drawn from his failure to testify in his own defense. The defendant in this case asks us to reexamine and overrule Branham. The most recent expression by the United States Supreme Court on this subject appears in Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333, 98 S. Ct. 1091, 55 L. Ed. 2d 319 (1978). Nothing in that case or in other cases cited by the defendant in his brief persuades us to come to a different conclusion.

There is no error.

Footnotes

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

Per Curiam.

In State v. Branham, 171 Conn. 12, 368 A.2d 63 (1976), we held that in the absence of controlling statutory provisions¹ an accused is not entitled to an instruction to the jury that no adverse inferences are to be drawn from his failure to testify in his own defense. The defendant in this case asks us to reexamine and overrule Branham. The most recent expression by the United States Supreme Court on this subject appears in Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333, 98 S. Ct. 1091, 55 L. Ed. 2d 319 (1978). Nothing in that case or in other cases cited by the defendant in his brief persuades us to come to a different conclusion.

There is no error.

Footnotes

State v. Lane, 426 A.2d 297, 179 Conn. 327, 1979 Conn. LEXIS 964 (Colo. 1979).

Pincite

426 A.2d 297 (State v. Lane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related