Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MICHAEL KASPRZYK (SC 16294)
Borden, Norcott, Katz, Sullivan and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued September 20, 2000--officially released January 9, 2001 Counsel

Vincent F. Sabatini, with whom were James V. Sabatini and, on the brief, Tara K. Lyons, for the appellant (defendant). Eileen McCarthy Geel, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Scott J. Murphy, state's attorney, and Mary Rose Flaherty, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion

NORCOTT, J. The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded that a mistrial was required because of manifest necessity. The trial court, Moore, J., denied the motion of the defendant, Michael Kasprzyk, to dismiss the information, concluding that the prior declaration of a mistrial by the court, Cutsumpas, J., had been based on manifest necessity and that, therefore, further prosecution was not barred by the double jeopardy clause of the United States constitu-

tion. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to dismiss, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes

Download State v. Kasprzyk.pdf

Connecticut Law