Legal Opinion
State v. Marino
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided August 13, 1990No. 7591PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per curiam
The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, of the sale of cocaine by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b). The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) denied his pretrial motion for a continuance, (2) instructed the jury on the issue of entrapment, (3) sustained a state witness’s claim of attorney-client privilege, and (4) permitted the state’s attorney to cross-examine a defense witness about his prior guilty plea.
The following facts are relevant to the disposition of the defendant’s appeal. In July,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Moore v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- California v. TybergSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- State v. WhelanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. LeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- State v. LeeConnecticut Appellate Court · 1993
- State v. WilderConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011
- State v. CarolinaConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- State v. MarinoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1990