From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Bispham

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Jun 8, 1999
731 A.2d 294 (Conn. 1999)

Opinion

(SC 15925)

Argued April 21, 1999

Officially released June 8, 1999

Procedural History

Amended information charging the defendant with two counts of the crime of risk of injury to a child and one count each of the crimes of sexual assault in the first degree and sexual assault in the second degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, and tried to the jury before Hon. Thomas H. Corrigan, judge trial referee, who, exercising the powers of the Superior Court, rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict of guilty of one count each of risk of injury to a child, sexual assault in the first degree and sexual assault in the second degree; thereafter, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, O'Connell, C. J., and Spear and Freedman, Js., which affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.

Glenn W. Falk, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, state's attorney, and Kevin J. Murphy, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).


After examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was granted improvidently.

We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court; State v. Bispham, 48 Conn. App. 135, 708 A.2d 604 (1998); limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a written statement of the complainant as constancy of accusation evidence, and that the defendant did not show prejudice from the admission of such evidence, despite the prosecutor's closing argument that the written statement would be available for review in the jury room to support the complainant's credibility?" State v. Bispham, 244 Conn. 929, 711 A.2d 728 (1998).


Summaries of

State v. Bispham

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Jun 8, 1999
731 A.2d 294 (Conn. 1999)
Case details for

State v. Bispham

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. DAVID BISPHAM

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Jun 8, 1999

Citations

731 A.2d 294 (Conn. 1999)
731 A.2d 294