State v. McClendon

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. McClendon

704 A.2d 799, 243 Conn. 943, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 476

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedNovember 6, 1997

DocketSC 15817

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 704 A.2d 799 (State v. McClendon) 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. McClendon, 704 A.2d 799, 243 Conn. 943, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 476 (Colo. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 658 (AC 15529), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court correctly held there was probable cause to support a warrant authorizing the seizure of the defendant for lineup and voice sample?

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit the defendant from introducing a police report under the residual exception to the hearsay rule?

“3. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s refusal to admit expert testimony on the subject of eyewitness identification and memory retention?”

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, 45 Conn. App. 658 (AC 15529), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court correctly held there was probable cause to support a warrant authorizing the seizure of the defendant for lineup and voice sample?

“2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit the defendant from introducing a police report under the residual exception to the hearsay rule?

“3. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s refusal to admit expert testimony on the subject of eyewitness identification and memory retention?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 A.2d 799, 243 Conn. 943, 1997 Conn. LEXIS 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcclendon-conn-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack