State v. Shannon

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Shannon

659 A.2d 757, 38 Conn. App. 193, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 289

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 13, 1995

Docket13688

StatusPublished

This text of 659 A.2d 757 (State v. Shannon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Shannon, 659 A.2d 757, 38 Conn. App. 193, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 289 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from two judgments of conviction, after a jury trial, each of assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes [194]*194§ 53a-61 (a) (1). Both counts allege assaults on the same victim, the first on June 3, 1993, and the second on August 25, 1993. The defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in consolidating the two cases for trial.

The two assault charges involved discrete, easily distinguishable scenarios. The crimes did not involve brutal or shocking conduct. The trial was of short duration; the evidence was not complex and was presented in an orderly manner. The trial court thoroughly instructed the jury that it must consider the charges separately. State v. Jennings, 216 Conn. 647, 656-60, 583 A.2d 915 (1990); State v. Jones, 37 Conn. App. 437, 445-48, 656 A.2d 696 (1995). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in joining the two cases for trial.

The judgments are affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from two judgments of conviction, after a jury trial, each of assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes [194]*194§ 53a-61 (a) (1). Both counts allege assaults on the same victim, the first on June 3, 1993, and the second on August 25, 1993. The defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in consolidating the two cases for trial.

The two assault charges involved discrete, easily distinguishable scenarios. The crimes did not involve brutal or shocking conduct. The trial was of short duration; the evidence was not complex and was presented in an orderly manner. The trial court thoroughly instructed the jury that it must consider the charges separately. State v. Jennings, 216 Conn. 647, 656-60, 583 A.2d 915 (1990); State v. Jones, 37 Conn. App. 437, 445-48, 656 A.2d 696 (1995). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in joining the two cases for trial.

The judgments are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

659 A.2d 757, 38 Conn. App. 193, 1995 Conn. App. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-shannon-connappct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack