State v. Tutson

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Tutson

861 A.2d 511, 271 Conn. 935, 2004 Conn. LEXIS 481

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided October 19, 2004·No. SC 17287·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 84 Conn. App. [936]*936610 (AC 24066), is granted, limited to the following issue:

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17287. Decided October 19, 2004 Michele C. Lukban, assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition. Mark Rademacher, assistant public defender, in opposition.

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant was entitled to a new trial because the trial court’s ruling improperly precluded his proffered alibi evidence under Practice Book § 40-21?”

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, 84 Conn. App. [936]*936610 (AC 24066), is granted, limited to the following issue:

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17287. Decided October 19, 2004 Michele C. Lukban, assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition. Mark Rademacher, assistant public defender, in opposition.

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant was entitled to a new trial because the trial court’s ruling improperly precluded his proffered alibi evidence under Practice Book § 40-21?”

State v. Tutson, 861 A.2d 511, 271 Conn. 935, 2004 Conn. LEXIS 481 (Colo. 2004).

Pincite

861 A.2d 511 (State v. Tutson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related