State v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 22 October 1974 |
| Citation | 355 A.2d 67,167 Conn. 281 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Philip BROOKS. |
John R. Williams, New Haven, for appellant (defendant).
William F. Gallagher, Sp. Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Arnold Markle, State's Atty., John J. Kelly and Ernest J. Diette, Jr., Asst. State's Attys., for appellee (state).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MacDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.
The defendant, Philip Brooks, was convicted in a jury trial of a sale of narcotics in violation of § 19-480(a) of the General Statutes. He has appealed from the judgment rendered.
The sole ground of appeal briefed by the defendant was the claim that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that possession of heroin was a lesser included offense of the crime of sale of heroin. Of necessity, the defendant admits that unless this court reverses its decision in State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 301 A.2d 547, he cannot prevail on this appeal. We adhere to our previous decision in State v. Brown, supra.
There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Whistnant
...v. Cari, 163 Conn. 174, 182-84, 303 A.2d 7 (1972); State v. Blyden, 165 Conn. 522, 528-30, 338 A.2d 484 (1973); State v. Brooks, 167 Conn. 281, 282, 355 A.2d 67 (1974); State v. Huot, 170 Conn. 463, 467, 365 A.2d 1144 (1976); State v. Ruiz, 171 Conn. 264, 272-74, 368 A.2d 222 (1976); State ......
- State v. Coleman