State v. Moulton
996 A.2d 278, 297 Conn. 916, 2010 Conn. LEXIS 245
This text of 996 A.2d 278 (State v. Moulton) 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. Moulton, 996 A.2d 278, 297 Conn. 916, 2010 Conn. LEXIS 245 (Colo. 2010).
Opinion
The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 120 Conn. App. 330 (AC 29617), is granted, limited to the following issues:
“1. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that General Statutes § 53a-183 (a) (3), harassment in the second degree, proscibes only the physical conduct involved in making a telephone call but not the verbal content thereof? If not, was the lack of an instruction on the definition of a ‘true threat’ harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?
“2. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the lack of an instruction on the definition of a ‘true threat,’ for purposes of proof of breach of the peace in the second degree under General Statutes § 53a-181 (a) (3), was not harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt?”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
State v. Moulton
991 A.2d 728 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2010)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
996 A.2d 278, 297 Conn. 916, 2010 Conn. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moulton-conn-2010.