State v. Novoa

610 A.2d 179, 223 Conn. 905, 1992 Conn. LEXIS 245

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided June 25, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 27 Conn. App. 596, is granted, limited to the following question:

Bruce A. Sturman, public defender, in support of the petition. Kevin T. Kane, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided June 25, 1992

“In the circumstances of this case, was the use of wiretap evidence permitted by the provisions of General Statutes §§ 54-41p (b) and 54-41b?”

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, 27 Conn. App. 596, is granted, limited to the following question:

Bruce A. Sturman, public defender, in support of the petition. Kevin T. Kane, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided June 25, 1992

“In the circumstances of this case, was the use of wiretap evidence permitted by the provisions of General Statutes §§ 54-41p (b) and 54-41b?”

State v. Novoa, 610 A.2d 179, 223 Conn. 905, 1992 Conn. LEXIS 245 (Colo. 1992).

Pincite

610 A.2d 179 (State v. Novoa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

618 A.2d 30 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1992)