State v. Raynor

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Raynor

193 A.3d 49, 330 Conn. 910

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided September 20, 2018·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 181 Conn.App. 760, 189 A.3d 652 (2018), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court had properly denied the defendant's motion for a Porter hearing to determine the reliability of fire-arm and toolmark identification?

"2. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court had properly denied the defendant's motion in limine to limit the scope of the testimony of the state's expert on firearm and toolmark analysis?

"3. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court had properly admitted the uncharged misconduct evidence?"

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

The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 181 Conn.App. 760, 189 A.3d 652 (2018), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court had properly denied the defendant's motion for a Porter hearing to determine the reliability of fire-arm and toolmark identification?

"2. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court had properly denied the defendant's motion in limine to limit the scope of the testimony of the state's expert on firearm and toolmark analysis?

"3. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court had properly admitted the uncharged misconduct evidence?"

State v. Raynor, 193 A.3d 49, 330 Conn. 910 (Colo. 2018).

Pincite

193 A.3d 49 (State v. Raynor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related