Legal Opinion
State v. Penna
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided February 3, 1967No. File No. CR 6-43782; File No. CR 6-43783PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJacobs, J.
The issues involved in these cases are identical. They were heard and argued together and may be disposed of in a single opinion. Both defendants are charged with violations of § 53-216 (sodomy) and § 53-217 (indecent assault).
The defendants’ motions to suppress arise under § 54-33f1 of the General Statutes. A motion to suppress is a statutory proceeding which was established following State v. Fahy, 149 Conn. 577, 582, rev’d on other grounds, 375 U.S. 85, where our Supreme Court recognized that the decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, was applicable to state practice. Prior to the…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Jones v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Ker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- McDonald v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Fahy v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. DarwinConnecticut Superior Court · 1972
- State v. ShawConnecticut Appellate Court · 1968