State v. Varszegi, 659 A.2d 184 (Conn. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Varszegi, 659 A.2d 184 (Conn. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
61 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Franko v. Commissioner of Correction (connappct, 2016-05-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Franko v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Although a reviewing court should adhere to the strong presumption that trial counsel's strategic decisions are reasonable until the habeas petitioner has shown otherwise; see Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 36 Conn.App. 695 , 705, 652 A.2d 1050 , cert. denied, 233 Conn. 912 , 659 A.2d 183 (1995) ; Gipson v. Commissioner of Correction, 54 Conn.App. 400 , 437, 735 A.2d 847 (1999) ( Lavery, J., concurring), rev'd on other grounds, 257 Conn. 632 , 778 A.2d 121 (2001) ; it should not speculate as to trial counsel's reasons for making such decisions.
cited Cited "see" Moore v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 36 Conn. App. 695, 701 , 652 A.2d 1050 , cert. denied, 233 Conn. 912 , 659 A.2d 183 (1995).
cited Cited "see" Kiely v. Raytheon Company
1st Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Johnson v. Comm'r of Correction, 36 Conn. App. 695 , 652 A.2d 1050, 1057 , cert. denied, 233 Conn. 912 , 659 A.2d 183 (1995); cf. Veranda Beach Club v. Westeru Sur.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Papineau
Conn. App. Ct. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
Finally, [b]ecause direct evidence of the accused's state of mind is rarely available ... intent is often inferred from conduct ... and from the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence and the rational inferences drawn therefrom." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Danforth , 315 Conn. 518 , 532-33, 108 A.3d 1060 (2015) ; see also State v. Smith , 36 Conn. App. 483 , 486, 651 A.2d 744 (1994) (sufficient for state to demonstrate that actors mutually agreed to commit forbidden act), cert. denied, 233 Conn. 910 , 659 A.2d 184 (1995).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
Paul Varszegi
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 15, 1995.
659 A.2d 184
James J. Ruane, special public defender, in support of the petition., Frederick W. Fawcett, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 36 Conn. App. 680 (AC 12599), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Was the defendant deprived of a constitutional right when he was impeached at trial by evidence of a prior conviction that was subsequently reversed on the ground of insufficient evidence?
“2. If there was such a deprivation, was the error harmless?
“3. Was the Appellate Court correct in holding that an objective test is employed in determining whether the defendant was entitled to have submitted to the jury the defense of necessity?”

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15219.