State v. Nelson

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Nelson

725 A.2d 350, 51 Conn. App. 699, 1999 Conn. App. LEXIS 41

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedFebruary 9, 1999

DocketAC 16838

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 725 A.2d 350 (State v. Nelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Nelson, 725 A.2d 350, 51 Conn. App. 699, 1999 Conn. App. LEXIS 41 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree¹ and carrying a pistol without a permit.² The sole issue claimed on appeal is that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that “reasonable doubt” is not a doubt suggested by the “ingenuity of counsel.”

The defendant relies on State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 504, 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121, 117 S. Ct. 2515, 138 L. Ed. 2d 1017 (1997), in [700]*700which our Supreme Court, acting under its supervisory powers, urged trial courts to avoid further use of the “ingenuity of counsel” instruction. After we heard oral argument in the present case, the Supreme Court decided State v. Edwards, 247 Conn. 318, 721 A.2d 519 (1998), in which it held that the admonition in Taylor was not applicable where the trial court had instructed the jury prior to the date of the Taylor decision. The trial in the present case took place in September, 1996, and Taylor was not decided until December, 1996. Edwards, therefore, is controlling.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree¹ and carrying a pistol without a permit.² The sole issue claimed on appeal is that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that “reasonable doubt” is not a doubt suggested by the “ingenuity of counsel.”

The defendant relies on State v. Taylor, 239 Conn. 481, 504, 687 A.2d 489 (1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1121, 117 S. Ct. 2515, 138 L. Ed. 2d 1017 (1997), in [700]*700which our Supreme Court, acting under its supervisory powers, urged trial courts to avoid further use of the “ingenuity of counsel” instruction. After we heard oral argument in the present case, the Supreme Court decided State v. Edwards, 247 Conn. 318, 721 A.2d 519 (1998), in which it held that the admonition in Taylor was not applicable where the trial court had instructed the jury prior to the date of the Taylor decision. The trial in the present case took place in September, 1996, and Taylor was not decided until December, 1996. Edwards, therefore, is controlling.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 A.2d 350, 51 Conn. App. 699, 1999 Conn. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nelson-connappct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack