Opinion
02-05-2020
STATE of Connecticut v. Hiral M. PATEL
Richard Emanuel, in support of the petition. Matthew A. Weiner, assistant state's attorney, in opposition.
Richard Emanuel, in support of the petition.
Matthew A. Weiner, assistant state's attorney, in opposition.
The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 194 Conn. App. 245, 221 A.3d 45 (2019), is granted, limited to the following issues:
"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the introduction into evidence of a codefendant's ‘dual inculpatory statement’ did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004) ?
"2. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the introduction into evidence of a codefendant's ‘dual inculpatory statement’ did not violate the defendant's confrontation rights under the Connecticut constitution?
"3. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that a codefendant's ‘dual inculpatory statement’ was properly admissible as a statement against penal interest under § 8-6 (4) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence ? Page 58 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL February 18, 2020 922 ORDERS 334 Conn.
"4. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court properly excluded from evidence, under § 8-6 (4) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, a codefendant's statement against penal interest that exculpated the defendant?"