State v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the Court
*3 Opinion
ZARELLA, J.
The issue in this interlocutory1 appeal2 is whether the trial court abused its discretion in declaring a mistrial, over the defendants’ objection, on the ground of manifest necessity after the senior assistant state’s attorney had become seriously ill and was unable to continue with the trial. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. In connection with the alleged embezzlement of tens of thousands of dollars, the defendants, Richard Anderson and Janice Anderson, each were charged…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Illinois v. SomervilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- State v. HendersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2024
- People v. ThreatteAppellate Court of Illinois · 2017
- Com. v. Flores, A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
- People v. WareCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.