State v. Stewart

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Stewart

763 A.2d 1039, 255 Conn. 913, 2000 Conn. LEXIS 447

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 5, 2000

DocketSC 16436

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 763 A.2d 1039 (State v. Stewart) 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. Stewart, 763 A.2d 1039, 255 Conn. 913, 2000 Conn. LEXIS 447 (Colo. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 60 Conn. App. 301 (AC 18813), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, under the facts of this case, the trial court’s failure to give a ‘no unfavorable inference’ instruction was plain error requiring reversal of the conviction?

“2. Is the failure to include such an instruction subject to harmless error analysis?”

It is further ordered that the trial court articulate the facts concerning discussions, if any, among the state’s attorney, defense counsel and the court during a charging conference, relative to the court’s giving a “no unfavorable inference” instruction to the jury in this matter.

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

The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 60 Conn. App. 301 (AC 18813), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, under the facts of this case, the trial court’s failure to give a ‘no unfavorable inference’ instruction was plain error requiring reversal of the conviction?

“2. Is the failure to include such an instruction subject to harmless error analysis?”

It is further ordered that the trial court articulate the facts concerning discussions, if any, among the state’s attorney, defense counsel and the court during a charging conference, relative to the court’s giving a “no unfavorable inference” instruction to the jury in this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 A.2d 1039, 255 Conn. 913, 2000 Conn. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stewart-conn-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack