From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Castillo

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 13, 2016
150 A.3d 684 (Conn. 2016)

Opinion

09-13-2016

STATE of Connecticut v. William CASTILLO

Richard Emanuel, in support of the petition. Nancy L. Chupak, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.


Richard Emanuel, in support of the petition.

Nancy L. Chupak, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 165 Conn.App. 703, 140 A.3d 301 (2016), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the defendant was not in custody for Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478–79, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), purposes during his in-home interrogation by the police?

"2. Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the trial court's factual finding, that the defendant was at home when the police arrived to interrogate him, was not clearly erroneous?

"3. Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that it was inappropriate or premature for that court to consider the defendant's supervisory claim?"


Summaries of

State v. Castillo

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 13, 2016
150 A.3d 684 (Conn. 2016)
Case details for

State v. Castillo

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Connecticut v. William CASTILLO

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Sep 13, 2016

Citations

150 A.3d 684 (Conn. 2016)
323 Conn. 903

Citing Cases

State v. Castillo

" (3) "Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that it was inappropriate or premature for that court to…