Supreme Court of Connecticut· 7/30/1985

State v. Thompson

Citations

197 Conn. 67
495 A.2d 1054
1985 Conn. LEXIS 849

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

because the sale of cocaine on separate dates five days apart was not one transaction, state properly charged defendant with separate offenses
claim that the mandatory minimum sentence provision of General Statutes § 19-480(a), now General Statutes § 21a-278 (a), is unconstitutionally vague
no Evans review of vagueness challenge where record revealed defendant failed to raise issue in trial court regarding questionable statutory standard
§ 19-474 [now § 21a-269] places burden on defendant to prove existence of impaired mental capacity under exception in § 19-480a (a) [now § 21a-278 (a)]
“An analysis of the Blockburger test involves a threshold determination of whether the offenses arose out of the ‘same act or transaction,’ and a substantive analysis of whether they contain distinct elements.”
defendant ‘‘may not be sentenced on the basis of improper factors or erroneous information’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Santaniello

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

55 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.