Case Name: State of Connecticut v. Gerrod Ellis
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1994-10-18
Citations: 36 Conn. App. 916
Docket Number: 13386
Parties: State of Connecticut v. Gerrod Ellis
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
State of Connecticut v. Gerrod Ellis
(13386)
O’Connell, Schaller and Spear, Js.
Argued September 28
decision released October 18, 1994
Neal Cone, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Nancy Gillespie, deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John Connelly, state’s attorney, Bradford Ward, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, and Eva Lenczewski, assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The defendant concedes that the jury instruction issues that he raises have been resolved adversely to his claims by our Supreme Court. We are bound by those rulings. See Burton v. Planning Commission, 13 Conn. App. 400, 409, 536 A.2d 995 (1988), aff'd, 209 Conn. 609, 553 A.2d 161 (1989); State v. Thurman, 10 Conn. App. 302, 309 n.5, 523 A.2d 891, cert. denied, 204 Conn. 805, 528 A.2d 1152 (1987).
The judgment is affirmed.
This appeal was taken originally to the Supreme Court. Pursuant to Practice Book § 4023, the Supreme Court transferred the appeal to this court.