From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Tinsley

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 30, 2020
335 Conn. 927 (Conn. 2020)

Opinion

06-30-2020

STATE of Connecticut v. Darrell TINSLEY

Melissa L. Streeto, senior assistant state's attorney, in support of the petition. Naomi T. Fetterman, assigned counsel, in opposition.


Melissa L. Streeto, senior assistant state's attorney, in support of the petition.

Naomi T. Fetterman, assigned counsel, in opposition.

The plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 197 Conn. App. 302, 232 A.3d 86 (2020), is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that, notwithstanding the fact that manslaughter in the first degree, under General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (1), and risk of injury to a child, under General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 53-21, as amended by Public Acts 1995, No. 95-142, § 1, are not the same offense under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932), the defendant's conviction of those crimes nonetheless violated the double jeopardy clause of the United States constitution because, as charged in the information, those crimes stood in relation of greater and lesser included offenses?"


Summaries of

State v. Tinsley

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 30, 2020
335 Conn. 927 (Conn. 2020)
Case details for

State v. Tinsley

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Connecticut v. Darrell TINSLEY

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Jun 30, 2020

Citations

335 Conn. 927 (Conn. 2020)
234 A.3d 979

Citing Cases

State v. Tinsley

We granted the state's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: "Did the…