Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

243 Conn. 955

State v. Jason B.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 10, 1997

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1997-12-10

Relies on State v. Jason B.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-12-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably Thames River Recycling, Inc. v. Gallo (1998), Litchfield Asset Management Corp. v. Howell (2002)

29 state decisions

190199720002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 68 (AC 15323), is granted, limited to the following issues:

¶2“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant was ‘more than two years older’ than the complainant within the meaning of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1) where the defendant on the date of the incident was sixteen years old and the complainant was fourteen years old?

¶3“2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the meaning of the term ‘year’ in General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1) was not unconstitutionally vague and/or violative of the equal protection clause of the United States constitution as applied to the facts of this case?

¶4“3. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the state adequately charged the defendant with a violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1993) § 53-21 (Risk of Injury) under the facts of this case, where a minor may lawfully engage in sexual intercourse in certain circumstances?

*956The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15841.Jon L. Schoenhom, in support of the petition.Carolyn K. Longstreth, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.Decided December 10, 1997

¶5“4. Assuming the state properly charged the defendant with a violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1993) § 53-21, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that it was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case?”

/243/conn/955 · .json · Public domain