State v. Leonard
226 Conn. 912
Conn.
1993
Check Treatment

Concurrence in Part

Berdon, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur that we should review the issue certified. I dissent because I would also certify for review the following issues: (1) Whether the Appellate Court was correct in holding that the trial court properly concluded, from *913the totality of circumstances, that the defendant was not unlawfully seized, and that police officers had a reasonable and articulable suspicion for an investigative detention; and (2) whether the Appellate Court was correct in holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the defendant from asking the police officer who obtained the information used as the basis for the stop, questions concerning the reliability of the confidential informant and the basis of the informant’s information?

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14797. Susan M. Hankins, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. Mary H. Lesser, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided June 17, 1993



Lead Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 178 (AC 10653), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court’s instruction on reasonable doubt (‘A reasonable doubt is a doubt for which a valid reason can be assigned’) did not dilute the state’s burden of proof or violate the presumption of innocence?”