State v. Carrion

Decision Date25 April 2012
Citation304 Conn. 925,41 A.3d 1052
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Christopher CARRION.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Daniel Jonah Krisch, assigned counsel, and Michael S. Taylor, assigned counsel, in support of the petition.

Harry Wetter, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 128 Conn.App. 46, 16 A.3d 1232 (2011), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant had a meaningful opportunity to review the trial court's final jury instructions and therefore waived his unpreserved claim of instructional impropriety under State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 10 A.3d 942 (2011), when defense counsel did not receive those instructions until immediately prior to the lunch break on the day that the court instructed the jury, thereby affording counsel only one hour to review the instructions?

“2. Under the circumstances presented, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court reasonably permitted the state to introduce as substantive evidence a videotaped interview of a child complainant in this sexual abuse case under State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743, 513 A.2d 86, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994, 107 S.Ct. 597, 93 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986)?”

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Carrion
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • September 30, 2014
    ...permitted the state to introduce as substantive evidence a [video-recorded] interview of [D.L.] ... under [Whelan ]?” State v. Carrion, 304 Conn. 925, 41 A.3d 1052 (2012). Second, “[d]id the Appellate Court properly conclude that [defense counsel] had a meaningful opportunity to review the ......
  • State v. Carrion
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • September 30, 2014
    ...permitted the state to introduce as substantive evidence a [video-recorded] interview of [D.L.] . . . under [Whelan]?" State v. Carrion, 304 Conn. 925, 41 A.3d 1052 (2012). Second, "[d]id the Appellate Court properly conclude that [defense counsel] had a meaningful opportunity to review the......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT