State v. Pieger, No. Mv92 0512472 S (Nov. 8, 1994)

Connecticut Superior Court

State v. Pieger, No. Mv92 0512472 S (Nov. 8, 1994)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11296

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedNovember 8, 1994

DocketNo. MV92 0512472 S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11296 (State v. Pieger, No. Mv92 0512472 S (Nov. 8, 1994)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Pieger, No. Mv92 0512472 S (Nov. 8, 1994), 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11296 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]PETITION FOR NEW TRIAL The defendant filed under the date of May 4th, 1994 and filed in the clerk's office on May 6th, 1994 a petition for a new trial. The basis of said motion was that the Court in reaching its decision relied in part on a memorandum of law prepared by the Assistant State's Attorney Nicholas Bove in which it was argued on the basis of State v.Harris that the corpus delicti of the crime in question had been established.

The focus of the motion appears to be that the Court erroneously relied upon the case law of State v. Harris 215 Conn. 189 (1990) as put forth by the State in its memorandum. The other objections to the Court relying on it are set out in the motion. The Court did rely on the law as set forth in State v. Harris and in State v. Tillman152 Conn. 15. Accordingly found the statement of the defendant to be admissible. Accordingly, the petition for new trial was denied.

McGrath, J. CT Page 11297

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]PETITION FOR NEW TRIAL The defendant filed under the date of May 4th, 1994 and filed in the clerk's office on May 6th, 1994 a petition for a new trial. The basis of said motion was that the Court in reaching its decision relied in part on a memorandum of law prepared by the Assistant State's Attorney Nicholas Bove in which it was argued on the basis of State v.Harris that the corpus delicti of the crime in question had been established.

The focus of the motion appears to be that the Court erroneously relied upon the case law of State v. Harris 215 Conn. 189 (1990) as put forth by the State in its memorandum. The other objections to the Court relying on it are set out in the motion. The Court did rely on the law as set forth in State v. Harris and in State v. Tillman152 Conn. 15. Accordingly found the statement of the defendant to be admissible. Accordingly, the petition for new trial was denied.

McGrath, J. CT Page 11297

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 11296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pieger-no-mv92-0512472-s-nov-8-1994-connsuperct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack