From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Dickson

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 1, 2014
314 Conn. 913 (Conn. 2014)

Opinion

2014-10-1

STATE of Connecticut v. Andrew DICKSON.

Andrew S. Liskov, Bridgeport, in support of the petition. Katherine E. Donoghue, deputy assistant state's attorney, in opposition.


Andrew S. Liskov, Bridgeport, in support of the petition. Katherine E. Donoghue, deputy assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

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?”


Summaries of

State v. Dickson

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 1, 2014
314 Conn. 913 (Conn. 2014)
Case details for

State v. Dickson

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Connecticut v. Andrew DICKSON.

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Oct 1, 2014

Citations

314 Conn. 913 (Conn. 2014)
100 A.3d 404

Citing Cases

State v. Dickson

Id., at 654, 91 A.3d 958. We then granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to…

State v. Dickson

We then granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issues: (1)…