State v. Cavell, 10605

10605 | Conn. App. Ct. | Oct 18, 1994

Lead Opinion

Foti, J.

This matter is before us on remand from our Supreme Court. We previously considered it in State v. Cavell, 34 Conn. App. 276" court="Conn. App. Ct." date_filed="1994-05-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-cavell-7855602?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7855602">34 Conn. App. 276, 641 A.2d 426, remanded for reconsideration, 231 Conn. 902" court="Conn." date_filed="1994-08-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-cavell-7843581?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7843581">231 Conn. 902, 645 A.2d 1021 (1994). The Supreme Court ordered us to reconsider our judgment in light of State v. Robinson, 230 Conn. 591" court="Conn." date_filed="1994-08-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-robinson-7843445?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7843445">230 Conn. 591, 646 A.2d 118 (1994). Having reconsidered, we affirm our prior judgment.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

In this opinion Heiman, J., concurred.

---

Dissenting Opinion

O’Connell, J.,

dissenting. For the reasons set forth in State v. Cavell, 34 Conn. App. 276" court="Conn. App. Ct." date_filed="1994-05-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-cavell-7855602?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7855602">34 Conn. App. 276, 295-303, 641 A.2d 426" court="Conn. App. Ct." date_filed="1994-05-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-cavell-7855602?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7855602">641 A.2d 426, remanded for reconsideration, 231 Conn. 902, 645 A.2d 1021 (1994) {O’Connell, J., dissenting), I adhere to my dissent from that decision.