State v. Menzies, 608 A.2d 690 (Conn. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Menzies, 608 A.2d 690 (Conn. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Brundage (connappct, 2014-03-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Brundage
Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Menzies, 26 Conn. App. 674, 681 , 603 A.2d 419 (discretionary power of state to select appropriate charge limited by facts prosecutor reasonably expected to prove at trial), cert. denied, 221 Conn. 924 , 608 A.2d 690 (1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Letendre
N.H. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Menzies, 603 A.2d 419 (Conn. App. Ct.) (guardian ad litem sat with six-year-old witness), cert. denied, 608 A.2d 690 (Conn. 1992); Baxter v. State, 522 N.E.2d 362 (Ind. 1988) (mother held the hand of her nine-year-old during testimony); State v. Johnson, 528 N.E.2d 567 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986) (eight-year-old sat on aunt’s lap); Com. v. Pankraz, 554 A.2d 974 (Pa. Super.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Arthur
N.J. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 26 Conn.App. 779 , 603 A.2d 440, 442 (“crack cocaine is packaged in small vials ... the street term for such a vial is a ‘bottle’ ”), certif. denied, 221 Conn. 925 , 608 A.2d 690 (1992); People v. Gomez, 185 A.D.2d 154 , 586 N.Y.S.2d 588, 590 (Murphy, P.J., dissenting) (“bottles ... is street slang for crack”), appeal denied, 80 N.Y.2d 974 , 591 N.Y.S.2d 144 , *17 605 N.E.2d 880 (1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
James Menzies
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Apr 9, 1992.
608 A.2d 690
Ramona Stilley Carlow and Glenn D. Woods, in support of the petition., Rita M. Shair, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Berdon.
Published

Lead Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 26 Conn. App. 674, is denied.

Dissent

Berdon, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the defendant’s petition for certification in order for this court to review the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court err in concluding that, by denying the defendant the opportunity to question the state’s only substantive witness about documented instances of prior untruthfulness, the trial court had not improperly restricted the defendant’s right of cross-examination?

“2. Did the Appellate Court err in concluding that the defendant was not denied due process by the state’s refusal to drop the risk of injury count regarding ‘J’ despite the absence of admissible evidence as to this court?

“3. Did the Appellate Court err in concluding that the trial court properly adopted special procedures dur[*925] ing (the alleged victim) ‘L’s’ testimony and that these procedures did not engender sympathy for her or enhance her testimony?”

Decided April 9, 1992 Ramona Stilley Carlow and Glenn D. Woods, in support of the petition. Rita M. Shair, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.