From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Morales

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Mar 17, 1994
640 A.2d 116 (Conn. 1994)

Opinion

(14908)

Decided March 17, 1994


The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 33 Conn. App. 184 (AC 11565), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the proper test for ruling on the defendant's motion to dismiss, under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution, was the test articulated in Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988)?

"2. If the answer to question (1) is yes, did the Appellate Court properly conclude, under the circumstances of this case, that: (a) a motion to dismiss was a proper remedy for the alleged failure of the state to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence; and (b) a different standard would apply to a motion to suppress evidence based on the same conduct of the state?"


Temmy Ann Pieszak, assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

Donald A. Browne, state's attorney, in opposition.


Summaries of

State v. Morales

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Mar 17, 1994
640 A.2d 116 (Conn. 1994)
Case details for

State v. Morales

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ROBERTO MORALES

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Mar 17, 1994

Citations

640 A.2d 116 (Conn. 1994)
228 Conn. 928

Citing Cases

State v. Morales

We granted the defendant's petition for certification. State v. Morales, 228 Conn. 928, 640 A.2d 116 (1994).…

State v. Morales

"`2. If the answer to question (1) is yes, did the Appellate Court properly conclude, under the circumstances…