State v. Speight

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Speight

544 A.2d 230, 15 Conn. App. 328, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 274

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 23, 1988

Docket6301

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 544 A.2d 230 (State v. Speight) 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. Speight, 544 A.2d 230, 15 Conn. App. 328, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 274 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant is appealing his conviction, after a jury trial, of the crime of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-277 (a) and 53a-48.

The determinative issue is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial based on the state’s failure to disclose that a major witness, called by the state, had criminal charges pending against him. The defendant claims that the failure to disclose such charges violated the strictures enunciated in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). The witness first testified for the defendant. Later, upon learning that the witness was a confidential police informant who had supplied information about the defendant to the police, the state called him as a rebuttal witness. The state denied that it had intentionally withheld any information disclosable under Brady.

After a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion for a new trial, the trial court found no Brady violation and denied the motion. Our review of the record, transcripts and briefs fails to disclose that such [330]*330finding was clearly erroneous or that the decision was otherwise erroneous in law. Practice Book § 4061.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant is appealing his conviction, after a jury trial, of the crime of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-277 (a) and 53a-48.

The determinative issue is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial based on the state’s failure to disclose that a major witness, called by the state, had criminal charges pending against him. The defendant claims that the failure to disclose such charges violated the strictures enunciated in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). The witness first testified for the defendant. Later, upon learning that the witness was a confidential police informant who had supplied information about the defendant to the police, the state called him as a rebuttal witness. The state denied that it had intentionally withheld any information disclosable under Brady.

After a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion for a new trial, the trial court found no Brady violation and denied the motion. Our review of the record, transcripts and briefs fails to disclose that such [330]*330finding was clearly erroneous or that the decision was otherwise erroneous in law. Practice Book § 4061.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 A.2d 230, 15 Conn. App. 328, 1988 Conn. App. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-speight-connappct-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack