State v. Coleman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1ConcurrenceBogdanski, J.
I agree with the result but find myself unable to join in the court’s opinion. I cannot accept the reasoning employed by the majority in concluding that the defendant voluntarily waived his constitutional right to be “informed of the nature and cause of his accusation” ; Conn. Const. art. I § 8; nor do I agree that the reference in the short form information to the specific statute which defined the offense was sufficient to allege the element of intent to defraud.
The defendant’s motion to dismiss the information was based on his constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him.…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Argersinger v. HamlinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- In Re OliverSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Fahy v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.