State v. Scotignello

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Scotignello

226 A.2d 522, 154 Conn. 741

DecidedFebruary 8, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.2d 522 (State v. Scotignello) 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. Scotignello, 226 A.2d 522, 154 Conn. 741 (Colo. 1967).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.2d 522, 154 Conn. 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-scotignello-conn-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack