State v. Angell, 655 A.2d 259 (Conn. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Angell, 655 A.2d 259 (Conn. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Galberth (connappct, 2017-08-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Galberth
Conn. App. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
See State v. Outlaw , supra, 60 Conn.App. at 523 , 760 A.2d 140 ("[t]he [ McFarland ] decision's rationale is that the defendant is not in the custody of the commissioner of correction under either circumstance"); see also State v. McFarland , 36 Conn.App. 440 , 448, 651 A.2d 285 (1994) ("[w]e hold that the term release as used in ... § 53a-31 includes physical release from custody ... and that probation commences by operation of law on the date of the actual release from imprisonment"), cert. denied, 232 Conn. 916 , 655 A.2d 259 (1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
Paul Angell
SC 15206.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 22, 1995.
655 A.2d 259
1995 Conn. LEXIS 86
R. Jeffrey Lyman, Patricia E. McCooey and Linda L. Morkan, in support of the petition., Pamela S. Meotti, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 36 Conn. App. 383 (AC 12359), is granted, limited to the following issues:

[*916] Decided February 22, 1995 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15206. R. Jeffrey Lyman, Patricia E. McCooey and Linda L. Morkan, in support of the petition. Pamela S. Meotti, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

“1. Whether the Appellate Court was correct in concluding that the defendant’s federal constitutional rights of confrontation were not violated when the trial court admitted into evidence constancy of accusation testimony.

“2. Whether the Appellate Court was correct in concluding that the defendant’s exception to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the credibility of a child witness was inadequate to preserve the issue for appeal.”