State v. Sinchak

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Sinchak

721 A.2d 1193, 247 Conn. 440, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 1

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

DocketSC 15854

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 721 A.2d 1193 (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, 721 A.2d 1193, 247 Conn. 440, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 1 (Colo. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court; State v. Sinchak, 47 Conn. App. 134, 703 A.2d 790 (1997); limited to the following issues: (1) “Whether the rule set forth in State v. McPhail, 213 Conn. 161 [567 A.2d 812] (1989), should be overruled and a midline approach should be used to decide whether one has been deprived of a fair and valid probable cause hearing?” and (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?” State v. Sinchak, 243 Conn. 964, 707 A.2d 1266 (1998).

With respect to the first question certified, we have determined that certification was granted improvidently. The rule of State v. McPhail, supra, 213 Conn. 161, best would be addressed in conjunction with the rules set forth in State v. Boyd, 214 Conn. 132, 570 A.2d 1125 (1990), and State v. Mitchell, 200 Conn. 323, 512 [442]*442A.2d 140 (1986). The continued validity of the rules of Boyd and Mitchell, however, was not certified and, therefore, not briefed or argued in this case.

With respect to the second question certified, after examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that certification was granted improvidently.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court; State v. Sinchak, 47 Conn. App. 134, 703 A.2d 790 (1997); limited to the following issues: (1) “Whether the rule set forth in State v. McPhail, 213 Conn. 161 [567 A.2d 812] (1989), should be overruled and a midline approach should be used to decide whether one has been deprived of a fair and valid probable cause hearing?” and (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?” State v. Sinchak, 243 Conn. 964, 707 A.2d 1266 (1998).

With respect to the first question certified, we have determined that certification was granted improvidently. The rule of State v. McPhail, supra, 213 Conn. 161, best would be addressed in conjunction with the rules set forth in State v. Boyd, 214 Conn. 132, 570 A.2d 1125 (1990), and State v. Mitchell, 200 Conn. 323, 512 [442]*442A.2d 140 (1986). The continued validity of the rules of Boyd and Mitchell, however, was not certified and, therefore, not briefed or argued in this case.

With respect to the second question certified, after examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that certification was granted improvidently.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

721 A.2d 1193, 247 Conn. 440, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sinchak-conn-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack