Legal Opinion

State v. Kasprzyk

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided January 9, 2001No. SC 16294PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NORCOTT, J.

The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded that a mistrial was required because of manifest necessity. The trial court, Moore, J., denied the motion of the defendant, Michael Kasprzyk, to dismiss the information, concluding that the prior declaration of a mistrial by the court, Cutsum-pas, J., had been based on manifest necessity and that, therefore, further prosecution was not barred by the double jeopardy clause of the United States constitu*188tion. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of the trial court denying his…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Abney v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. FergusonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
  2. State v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
  3. State v. SaundersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
  4. State v. NixonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
  5. State v. AndersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010

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

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

Powered by the Exa API