Opinion · Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Brosnan

219 Conn. 907

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Date: 1991-05-30
Topic: general

The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 24 Conn. App. 473, is granted, limited to the following issues: “1. Did the Appellate Court correctly hold that a person has a common law privilege to use force to resist an illegal entry into a place that is not his home if he has a reasonable expectation of privacy under the fourth amendment in that place? “2. If the fourth amendment controls who has the common law privilege, was the Appellate Court correct in finding that the defendant was an overnight *908houseguest, thereby failing to defer to the trial court finding of fact to the contrary? Marjorie Allen Dauster, in support of the petition.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Brosnan. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status: pending
Cited by: 1 opinion

The state of Connecticut’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 24 Conn. App. 473, is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court correctly hold that a person has a common law privilege to use force to resist an illegal entry into a place that is not his home if he has a reasonable expectation of privacy under the fourth amendment in that place?

“2. If the fourth amendment controls who has the common law privilege, was the Appellate Court correct in finding that the defendant was an overnight *908 houseguest, thereby failing to defer to the trial court finding of fact to the contrary?

Marjorie Allen Dauster, in support of the petition. Jacques J. Parenteau, in opposition. Decided May 30, 1991

“3. If the defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on a privilege to resist an illegal entry, did the Appellate Court correctly hold, when the record was inadequate, that the arrest of the defendant was unlawful instead of remanding the matter for further evidentiary proceedings?

“4. Was the Appellate Court correct in using plain error to remand for further proceedings with respect to the destruction of a videotape when the exculpatory value of the lost videotape and actual prejudice to the defendant was wholly speculative?”