Appeals from the rulings and decisions of the Superior Court, upon all questions of law arising on the trial of criminal cases, may be taken by the state, with the permission of the presiding judge, to the Supreme Court or to the Appellate Court, in the same manner and to the same effect as if made by the accused.

Right of appeal not limited to errors during trial alone, but extends to errors in earlier part of proceedings. 58 C. 100. Section authorizes an appeal in the nature of a motion for a new trial after acquittal; bail. 65 C. 278; 106 C. 115. Proper method to pursue to secure rulings on evidence for appeal; asking prejudicial questions before jury to secure rulings on evidence held error. 100 C. 215. Proper method to be pursued by state in taking an appeal in a criminal case discussed. 106 Conn. 115. To review judgment of city court, state may bring writ of error. 118 C. 373. Statute held constitutional. 122 C. 542; 302 U.S. 319. Cited. 150 C. 246; 163 C. 230; 164 C. 637. Rulings and decisions appealable under section include any proceeding from which either criminal defendant or party to civil trial could appeal. 170 Conn. 337. State has right to appeal in criminal cases only from Superior Court on questions of law with permission of presiding judge. 171 C. 417. Cited. Id., 600; 174 C. 100; 176 Conn. 224. Double jeopardy does not attach as long as a retrial is not required in the event the state prevails in its appeal. 178 C. 450. Cited. 181 C. 284; 187 C. 109; 188 Conn. 183; Id., 626. State’s motion for dismissal with prejudice in order to allow appeal from suppression order discussed. 189 C. 42. Cited. Id., 228; Id., 360; Id., 717; 191 Conn. 506; 192 C. 471; 194 Conn. 594; 197 C. 436. Jurisdictional predicate for appeal exists only if trial court abused discretion in denying motion for permission to appeal. 202 C. 300. Cited. 209 C. 23; 210 C. 110; 213 Conn. 66; Id., 708; 214 Conn. 657; Id., 692; 215 C. 189; 219 Conn. 752; 223 C. 411; 224 C. 656, see also 31 CA 452; 225 Conn. 355; 226 Conn. 514; 229 Conn. 178; 230 C. 427; Id., 608; 236 C. 659. Judgment of Appellate Court in 33 CA 550 reversed on appeal of state with respect to suppression of evidence pursuant to section. 238 C. 380. Cited. Id., 828; 240 C. 317; Id., 708; 241 Conn. 823. Trial court abuses its discretion in denying state permission to appeal under section if state demonstrates that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 261 C. 395. In denying state permission to appeal, trial court misconstrued the law of unanimity in context of a capital felony penalty hearing and, by doing so, improperly concluded that jury reached a lawful verdict. 271 C. 338. Cited. 1 CA 378; 2 CA 605; 3 Conn.App. 477; 4 Conn.App. 520; 7 CA 131; 10 CA 147; Id., 532; 15 CA 289; 17 CA 385; 18 CA 658; 19 Conn.App. 631; Id., 686; 20 Conn.App. 321. Appeal period runs from date permission to appeal is granted. 23 Conn.App. 559. Cited. 25 Conn.App. 235; 26 Conn.App. 667; 27 CA 427; 29 CA 512; 32 CA 1; 34 CA 1; 36 Conn.App. 803; judgment reversed, see 235 Conn. 659, see also 241 Conn. 823; 39 CA 550; judgment reversed with respect to suppression of evidence, see 238 Conn. 380; 40 CA 544; Id., 789; 42 CA 1; Id., 17; Id., 186; judgment reversed, see 241 Conn. 823; 43 CA 698; 45 Conn.App. 722; 46 CA 350. Probation revocation hearing is a criminal case that can be appealed under section. 50 CA 187. Trial court improperly denied state permission to appeal on the bases of inadequacy of record where state rectified record, lack of jurisdiction over defendant solely for prosecutor’s failure to sign the information pursuant to Sec. 36-12, and state’s failure to indicate its intention to appeal on date of dismissal of charges where state impliedly expressed its intent by seeking “one week” and planned to file motion to appeal within that period. 51 CA 676. In the absence of either permission to appeal or challenge to trial court’s denial of permission to appeal, Appellate Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal pursuant to section. 55 CA 250. Where there was sufficient basis in the evidence to support court’s finding on a motion to suppress and there had been a full evidentiary hearing on such motion, the record was such that there was no clear, arbitrary and extreme abuse of discretion such that an injustice appears to have been done and, therefore, trial court’s denial of state’s request for permission to appeal was not an abuse of discretion. 64 CA 495. Despite the statutory language of section permitting the state to appeal “with the permission of the court”, the state may directly appeal a question of law without the permission of the court after requesting permission to appeal if the request is expressly denied. 147 Conn.App. 465. Cited. 38 CS 521.