Summary
In State v. Sinchak, 247 Conn. 440, 721 A.2d 1193 (1999), the court initially had granted the defendant's petition for certification asking the court to overrule State v. McPhail, supra, 213 Conn. 161, but subsequently determined that certification on the issue was improvidently granted because "[t]he rule of [ McPhail] best would be addressed in conjunction with the rules set forth in State v. Boyd, [supra, 214 Conn. 132], and State v. Mitchell, [supra, 200 Conn. 323].
Summary of this case from State v. BrownOpinion
(SC 15854)
Argued December 8, 1998
Officially released January 19, 1999
Substitute information charging the defendant with one count of the crime of murder and two counts of the crime of kidnapping in the first degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury and tried to the jury before Murray, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, O'Connell, C.J., and Spear and Dupont, Js., which affirmed the trial court's judgment, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
Pamela S. Nagy, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
John A. East III, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John A. Connelly, state's attorney, and Eva Lenczewski, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court; State v. Sinchak, 47 Conn. App. 134, 703 A.2d 790 (1997); limited to the following issues: (1) "Whether the rule set forth in State v. McPhail, 213 Conn. 161 [ 567 A.2d 812] (1989), should be overruled and a midline approach should be used to decide whether one has been deprived of a fair and valid probable cause hearing?" and (2) "Whether the Appellate Court correctly determined the state's nondisclosure of exculpatory documents prior to or at the probable cause hearing did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial?" State v. Sinchak, 243 Conn. 964, 707 A.2d 1266 (1998).
With respect to the first question certified, we have determined that certification was granted improvidently. The rule of State v. McPhail, supra, 213 Conn. 161, best would be addressed in conjunction with the rules set forth in State v. Boyd, 214 Conn. 132, 570 A.2d 1125 (1990), and State v. Mitchell, 200 Conn. 323, 512 A.2d 140 (1986). The continued validity of the rules of Boyd and Mitchell, however, was not certified and, therefore, not briefed or argued in this case.
With respect to the second question certified, after examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that certification was granted improvidently.