State v. Golding
- Decided
- December 19, 1989
- Docket
- 13508
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut
Cited 2,736 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that unpreserved claims of constitutional magnitude may be raised for first time on appeal if, inter alia, record is adequate for review — State v. Anthony V. (2024)
- noting that unpreserved claim may be reviewed only if, inter alia, “the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error” — State v. Mullins (2008)
- requiring that “alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial” — State v. Batts (2007)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Callahan, J.
The defendant was charged in a four count information with larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-123 (a) (4),[1] conspiracy to commit larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-123 and 53a-48, general assistance fraud in violation of General Statutes § 17-282,[2] and conspiracy to commit general assist- [*235] anee fraud in violation of General Statutes §§ 17-282 and 53a-48. At the close of the state’s case the trial court dismissed both counts of conspiracy. The defendant was thereafter convicted by a jury of larceny in the second degree and of general assistance fraud. The trial court sentenced the defendant to concurrent suspended sentences on both counts, placed her on probation on both counts and ordered as conditions of probation that the defendant make restitution of the sum of $877.90 and perform two hundred hours of community service.
The defendant, thereafter, appealed on several grounds to the Appellate Court; that court upheld the trial court’s judgment. State v. Golding, 14 Conn. App. 272, 541 A.2d 509 (1988). The defendant then requested certification to this court. We granted certification[3] limited to the questions of whether the Appellate Court had erred in refusing to reverse the defendant’s conviction of general assistance fraud because of the lack of an instruction by the trial court concerning the amount involved in the fraud and whether the Appellate Court had erred by refusing to review the defendant’s claim that under the federal and state constitutions the amount involved in the fraud was an essential element of the offense and was therefore required to be charged by the trial court.[4] The claim [*236] of the lack of a jury instruction regarding the amount of the fraud was not raised at trial. The defendant therefore sought review in the Appellate Court and seeks review in this court under State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 327 A.2d 576 (1973).[5]
Cite this
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.