State v. Dickson

• Decision Date: 01 October 2014
• Citation: 100 A.3d 404 (Mem),314 Conn. 913
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Andrew DICKSON.

314 Conn. 913

100 A.3d 404 (Mem)

STATE of Connecticut

v.Andrew DICKSON.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Decided Oct. 1, 2014.

Andrew S. Liskov, Bridgeport, in support of the petition.

Katherine E. Donoghue, deputy assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

Opinion

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 150 Conn.App. 637, 91 A.3d 958, is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the in-court identification procedure used at trial was proper under this court's decision in State v. Smith, 200 Conn. 465, 512 A.2d 189 (1986), and, if so, should the Smith precedent be overturned?

“2. If we conclude that the in-court identification was improper, was the impropriety harmless in light of the other state's evidence?”