State v. Ouellette

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Ouellette

961 A.2d 417, 289 Conn. 951, 2008 Conn. LEXIS 538

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedNovember 24, 2008

DocketSC 18273

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 961 A.2d 417 (State v. Ouellette) 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. Ouellette, 961 A.2d 417, 289 Conn. 951, 2008 Conn. LEXIS 538 (Colo. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 110 Conn. App. 401 (AC 27531), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“In circumstances where the prosecutor adduced evidence that the state had entered into a plea agreement with its key witness pursuant to which the state would seek a particular sentence but then, after that witness’ trial testimony, the state recommended a different, more lenient sentence for the witness, did the Appellate Court improperly refuse to remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether *952 the state’s conduct violated the defendant’s due process rights?”

Decided November 24, 2008 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18273. Richard A. Reeve, special public defender, in support of the petition. Timothy J. Sugrue, senior 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, 110 Conn. App. 401 (AC 27531), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“In circumstances where the prosecutor adduced evidence that the state had entered into a plea agreement with its key witness pursuant to which the state would seek a particular sentence but then, after that witness’ trial testimony, the state recommended a different, more lenient sentence for the witness, did the Appellate Court improperly refuse to remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether *952 the state’s conduct violated the defendant’s due process rights?”

Decided November 24, 2008 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18273. Richard A. Reeve, special public defender, in support of the petition. Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

961 A.2d 417, 289 Conn. 951, 2008 Conn. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ouellette-conn-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack