From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Lisevick

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Oct 25, 2001
258 Conn. 933 (Conn. 2001)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

declining to exercise supervisory authority to require child interrogations to be videotaped where defendant pointed merely to possibility of taint and court found no evidence in record to support it

Summary of this case from State v. Vines
See 1 Summary

Opinion

Decided October 25, 2001

The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 65 Conn. App. 493 (AC 19472), is denied.

Moira L. Buckley, deputy assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

Mitchell S. Brody, senior assistant state's attorney, opposition.

Summaries of

State v. Lisevick

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Oct 25, 2001
258 Conn. 933 (Conn. 2001)

declining to exercise supervisory authority to require child interrogations to be videotaped where defendant pointed merely to possibility of taint and court found no evidence in record to support it

Summary of this case from State v. Vines
Case details for

State v. Lisevick

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. DIANA LISEVICK

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Oct 25, 2001

Citations

258 Conn. 933 (Conn. 2001)
785 A.2d 230

Citing Cases

State v. Jacobs

In fact, the failure to appeal immediately from an order of involuntary medication to restore competency will…

State v. Vumback

" See State v. Barile, 54 Conn. App. 866, 872-73, 738 A.2d 709 (1999). In State v. Lisevick, 65 Conn. App.…

5 Citing Cases