State v. Merritt

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Merritt

648 A.2d 165, 231 Conn. 926, 1994 Conn. LEXIS 357

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided September 20, 1994·No. SC 15045·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 36 Conn. App. 76 (AC 12377), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court correctly hold that harmless error occurred when the trial court improperly admitted horizontal gaze nystagmus test results and improperly allowed the jury to hear evidence that if eye jerking occurs prior to a forty-five degree angle a subject is more than likely above the legal limit of 0.10 of one percent for intoxication in a trial under General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (1)?”

[927]*927Decided September 20, 1994 Conrad O. Seifert, in support of the petition. Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

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, 36 Conn. App. 76 (AC 12377), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court correctly hold that harmless error occurred when the trial court improperly admitted horizontal gaze nystagmus test results and improperly allowed the jury to hear evidence that if eye jerking occurs prior to a forty-five degree angle a subject is more than likely above the legal limit of 0.10 of one percent for intoxication in a trial under General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (1)?”

[927]*927Decided September 20, 1994 Conrad O. Seifert, in support of the petition. Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

State v. Merritt, 648 A.2d 165, 231 Conn. 926, 1994 Conn. LEXIS 357 (Colo. 1994).

Pincite

648 A.2d 165 (State v. Merritt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related