State v. Pearson

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Pearson

295 A.2d 556, 162 Conn. 614

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 22, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 295 A.2d 556 (State v. Pearson) 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. Pearson, 295 A.2d 556, 162 Conn. 614 (Colo. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant has appealed from the judgment rendered on a verdict by the jury finding him guilty of the crime of possessing a narcotic drug in violation of subsection (b) of § 19 of Public Act No. 753 of the 1969 Session of the General Assembly (General Statutes §19-481 [b]) and of selling a narcotic drug in violation of subsection (a) of § 18 of that act (§19-480 [a]). He has assigned error in the denial of his motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law and evidence.

The decisive issue is one of fact. An examination of the evidence submitted for the consideration of the jury discloses that while much of the evidence was circumstantial in nature the verdict reached by the jury was a result reasonably reached on a permissible view of the evidence.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant has appealed from the judgment rendered on a verdict by the jury finding him guilty of the crime of possessing a narcotic drug in violation of subsection (b) of § 19 of Public Act No. 753 of the 1969 Session of the General Assembly (General Statutes §19-481 [b]) and of selling a narcotic drug in violation of subsection (a) of § 18 of that act (§19-480 [a]). He has assigned error in the denial of his motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the law and evidence.

The decisive issue is one of fact. An examination of the evidence submitted for the consideration of the jury discloses that while much of the evidence was circumstantial in nature the verdict reached by the jury was a result reasonably reached on a permissible view of the evidence.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.2d 556, 162 Conn. 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pearson-conn-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack