From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Marshall

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Jun 25, 1997
697 A.2d 361 (Conn. 1997)

Summary

In State v. Troupe, supra, 284, however, we restricted the doctrine so that a constancy of accusation witness could testify only to the fact and the timing of the victim's complaint.

Summary of this case from State v. Marshall

Opinion

Decided June 25, 1997


The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 66 (AC 14408), is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Whether the Appellate Court properly held that the trial court's admission of the two videotapes of the accusing child witness and the testimony of the six other witnesses as constancy of accusation evidence was proper?"

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15717.

Pamela S. Nagy, special assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

Robert J. Scheinblum, deputy assistant state's attorney, in opposition.


Summaries of

State v. Marshall

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Jun 25, 1997
697 A.2d 361 (Conn. 1997)

In State v. Troupe, supra, 284, however, we restricted the doctrine so that a constancy of accusation witness could testify only to the fact and the timing of the victim's complaint.

Summary of this case from State v. Marshall
Case details for

State v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JULIUS MARSHALL

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Jun 25, 1997

Citations

697 A.2d 361 (Conn. 1997)
241 Conn. 925

Citing Cases

State v. Marshall

We granted the defendant's petition for certification limited to the following issue: "Whether the Appellate…