State v. Vincent

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Vincent

623 A.2d 1026, 225 Conn. 917, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 127

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedMarch 25, 1993

DocketSC 14736

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 623 A.2d 1026 (State v. Vincent) 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. Vincent, 623 A.2d 1026, 225 Conn. 917, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 127 (Colo. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 249 (AC 10688), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the search war[918]*918rant application stated probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed?

Decided March 25, 1993 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14736. Michael K. Courtney, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. Leah Hawley, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

“2. Was the Appellate Court correct in not deciding (1) whether the seizure of the revolver, the subject of the prosecution, was ‘inadvertent’ under the ‘plain view’ exception to the warrant requirement, and (2) whether the Connecticut constitution requires ‘inadvertence’ under the ‘plain view’ exception even if the United States constitution does not?”

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, 30 Conn. App. 249 (AC 10688), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the search war[918]*918rant application stated probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed?

Decided March 25, 1993 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14736. Michael K. Courtney, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. Leah Hawley, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

“2. Was the Appellate Court correct in not deciding (1) whether the seizure of the revolver, the subject of the prosecution, was ‘inadvertent’ under the ‘plain view’ exception to the warrant requirement, and (2) whether the Connecticut constitution requires ‘inadvertence’ under the ‘plain view’ exception even if the United States constitution does not?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

623 A.2d 1026, 225 Conn. 917, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vincent-conn-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack