Legal Opinion

State v. Pinagglia

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 5, 1923PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The accused was charged with the crime of theft from the person. Error is assigned in charging the jury as follows: “Now, I think, gentlemen, in view of the evidence in this case you will have no difficulty in finding that this offense, that is, theft from the person of the complaining witness Pope, did occur at the time and place in question. The important question for you to determine aside from that if you find, as you undoubtedly will from the evidence, that such a theft occurred, is whether these accused or either of them was concerned in that act of theft, and whether that fact, if it…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. EllisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1819
  2. State v. FettererSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1894
  3. State v. DuffySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1889
  4. State v. BuonomoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1913
  5. State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1811

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. OtteyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. State v. TomassiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1950
  3. State v. ThomasSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
  4. Morro v. BrockettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
  5. State v. LougiotisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1943

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API