State v. Sinchak

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Sinchak

707 A.2d 1266, 243 Conn. 964, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 27

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJanuary 15, 1998

DocketSC 15854

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 707 A.2d 1266 (State v. Sinchak) 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. Sinchak, 707 A.2d 1266, 243 Conn. 964, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 27 (Colo. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 134 (AC 16557), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Whether the rule set forth in State v. McPhail, 213 Conn. 161 (1989), should be overruled and a midline approach should be used to decide whether one has [965]*965been deprived of a fair and valid probable cause hearing?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15854. Pamela S. Nagy, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. John A. East III, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided January 15, 1998

“2. Whether the Appellate Court correctly determined the state’s nondisclosure of exculpatory documents prior to or at the probable cause hearing did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial?”

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

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 134 (AC 16557), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Whether the rule set forth in State v. McPhail, 213 Conn. 161 (1989), should be overruled and a midline approach should be used to decide whether one has [965]*965been deprived of a fair and valid probable cause hearing?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15854. Pamela S. Nagy, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. John A. East III, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided January 15, 1998

“2. Whether the Appellate Court correctly determined the state’s nondisclosure of exculpatory documents prior to or at the probable cause hearing did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

707 A.2d 1266, 243 Conn. 964, 1998 Conn. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sinchak-conn-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack