State v. Murray

CourtListener 7909384Connappct30 de jun. de 1998

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

Per Curiam.
We agree with the trial court that there was no evidence of availability of the missing witness whom the defendant claimed that the state should have produced. See State v. Jones, 46 Conn. App. 640, 656, 700 A.2d 710, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 941, 704 A.2d 797 (1997). The trial court’s determination of fact in so finding was not clearly erroneous. On the basis of the record, we cannot say that the trial court’s decision not to give an adverse inference instruction was clearly erroneous. State v. Battle, 39 Conn. App. 742, 746, 667 A.2d 1288 (1995), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 922, 676 A.2d 1375, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 955, 117 S. Ct. 373, 136 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1996).

The judgment is affirmed.

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.