State v. Scotignello
226 A.2d 522, 154 Conn. 741
Opinion
The state’s attorney and counsel for each defendant in the above-entitled cases, tried jointly, having requested and stipulated that this court find reversible error because of the charge by the trial court on the failure of an accused to testify, and in view of the decision of this court in State v. Vars, 154 Conn. 255, 272, 224 A.2d 744, it is ordered that, in the appeal from the Superior Court in Windham County, the judgment as to each of the defendants be, and hereby is, set aside and, as to each defendant, a new trial is ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Scotignello, 226 A.2d 522, 154 Conn. 741 (Colo. 1967).
226 A.2d 522 (State v. Scotignello) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Vars
224 A.2d 744 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1966)