Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989

State v. Leonard

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided March 21, 1989

210 Conn. 480; 556 A.2d 611; 1989 Conn. LEXIS 67

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Longo (Conn. 1998)
State v. Robins (Conn. 1995)
State v. Wieler (Conn. 1995)
Board of Education v. State Board of Education (Conn. 1994)
Wynn v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance (Conn. 1994)
Appeal from Probate of Bencivenga (Conn. 1994)
State v. Rivera (Conn. 1994)
Whisper Wind Development Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Commission (Conn. 1994)
Lutynski v. B.B. & J. Trucking, Inc. (Conn. 1994)
State v. Jacobson (Conn. 1994)
Talton v. Warden (Conn. 1994)
State v. Doyle (Conn. App. Ct. 2012)
State v. Kendrick (Conn. App. Ct. 2011)
State v. Thomas (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)
Connecticut v. Lanzara, No. Cr96-250796 (Jun. 26, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The defendant, James Leonard, entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere to the charge of possession of narcotics (cocaine) with intent to sell, in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a). The Appellate Court found no error in the trial court’s *481denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. State v. Leonard, 14 Conn. App. 134, 539 A.2d 1030 (1988). We then granted the defendant’s petition for certification, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court err in sustaining the conclusion of the trial court at the hearing on the motion to suppress that there was sufficient evidence of probable cause under our federal and state constitutions to justify the police in making a warrantless search of the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger and in arresting him as a result of that search?” State v. Leonard, 208 Conn. 807, 545 A.2d 1104 (1988).

After examining the record on appeal, and after considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court must be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion therein contained.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.