State v. Kasprzyk
Supreme Court of Connecticut
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
- Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Abney v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. FergusonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- State v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
- State v. SaundersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- State v. NixonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2005
- State v. AndersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.