Legal Opinion

State v. Tate

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided May 22, 2001No. SC 16311PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KATZ, J.

The dispositive issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the trial court properly found, over the defendant’s objection, the requisite manifest necessity to declare a mistrial despite its failure to inquire of the jurors, as requested by the defendant, whether they had reached a unanimous verdict on the charge of murder, or any of the lesser included offenses charged, before declaring that they were deadlocked. We conclude that the trial court’s finding of manifest necessity was improper.

The record discloses the following pertinent facts. The defendant, James Tate, was…

2Cases cited76 opinions

  1. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Green v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  3. Abney v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824

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

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. State v. KitchensSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
  2. State v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
  3. State v. NowellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
  4. Commonwealth v. FigueroaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2014
  5. State v. SaundersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004

31 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