State v. Yurch

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Yurch

632 A.2d 699, 227 Conn. 910, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 347

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedSeptember 15, 1993

DocketSC 14831

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 632 A.2d 699 (State v. Yurch) 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. Yurch, 632 A.2d 699, 227 Conn. 910, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 347 (Colo. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 688 (AC 11282), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly reverse the judgment of the trial court by holding that this court’s decision in State v. Tatem, 194 Conn. 594, establishes that the trial court’s use of the word ‘unreasonable’ in [911]*911place of ‘unfavorable’ in instructing the jury under General Statutes § 54-84 (b) automatically requires reversal and a new trial?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14831. Decided September 15, 1993 Stephen R. Park, assistant attorney general-special assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

“2. If the answer to question 1. is no, was the trial court’s misstatement of the word ‘unreasonable’ in charging the jury under General Statutes § 54-84 (b), when viewed in the context of the jury charge as a whole and the evidence in the case, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?”

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

The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 688 (AC 11282), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly reverse the judgment of the trial court by holding that this court’s decision in State v. Tatem, 194 Conn. 594, establishes that the trial court’s use of the word ‘unreasonable’ in [911]*911place of ‘unfavorable’ in instructing the jury under General Statutes § 54-84 (b) automatically requires reversal and a new trial?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14831. Decided September 15, 1993 Stephen R. Park, assistant attorney general-special assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

“2. If the answer to question 1. is no, was the trial court’s misstatement of the word ‘unreasonable’ in charging the jury under General Statutes § 54-84 (b), when viewed in the context of the jury charge as a whole and the evidence in the case, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 A.2d 699, 227 Conn. 910, 1993 Conn. LEXIS 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-yurch-conn-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack