State v. Lawrence

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Lawrence

541 A.2d 550, 14 Conn. App. 816

Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided May 18, 1988·No. 6427·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This appeal implicates the fact finding function of the trial court and challenges the law making powers of the legislature.

Our review of the record and transcript discloses that there was sufficient evidence introduced by the state to support a conviction of the defendant for a violation of General Statutes § 14-219 (c) (Speeding).

Further, the defendant’s claim that he was entitled to a jury trial for said violation is without merit. See General Statutes § 54-82b (a); State v. Weisser, 9 Conn. App. 255, 258, 518 A.2d 655 (1986), cert. denied, 202 Conn. 803, 519 A.2d 1207 (1987); State v. Sheldon, 5 Conn. App. 434, 499 A.2d 432 (1985).

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

This appeal implicates the fact finding function of the trial court and challenges the law making powers of the legislature.

Our review of the record and transcript discloses that there was sufficient evidence introduced by the state to support a conviction of the defendant for a violation of General Statutes § 14-219 (c) (Speeding).

Further, the defendant’s claim that he was entitled to a jury trial for said violation is without merit. See General Statutes § 54-82b (a); State v. Weisser, 9 Conn. App. 255, 258, 518 A.2d 655 (1986), cert. denied, 202 Conn. 803, 519 A.2d 1207 (1987); State v. Sheldon, 5 Conn. App. 434, 499 A.2d 432 (1985).

There is no error.

State v. Lawrence, 541 A.2d 550, 14 Conn. App. 816 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

541 A.2d 550 (State v. Lawrence) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related