State v. Fleming, 659 A.2d 186 (Conn. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Fleming, 659 A.2d 186 (Conn. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. James (connappct, 2002-04-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
cited Cited "see" State v. James
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Fleming, 36 Conn. App. 556, 573 , 651 A.2d 1341 , cert. denied, 233 Conn. 913 , 659 A.2d 186 (1995).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. McDougal
Conn. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Fleming, 36 Conn. App. 556, 561 , 651 A.2d 1341 , cert. denied, 233 Conn. 913 , 659 A.2d 186 (1995) (“[t]he admission for substantive purposes of a prior inconsistent statement is limited to situations where the likelihood of fabrication is slight and the risk of coercion, influence or deception is greatly reduced” [internal quotation marks omitted]); In re Bassel C., 33 Conn. App. 90, 94-95 , 633 A.2d 733 (1993) (“the trial court must reasonably find sufficient indicia of reliability in the circumstances surrounding the statement to admit it substantively”); State v.…
State of Connecticut
v.
James Fleming, Jr.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
May 24, 1995.
659 A.2d 186
Shannon O. Louden, Barbara Jacobs and Linda L. Morkan, in support of the petition., John A. East III, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Berdon.
Published

Lead Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 36 Conn. App. 556 (AC 11816), is denied.

Dissent

Berdon, J., dissenting.

I would grant certification to appeal in order to review the following issues:

1. Whether the out-of-court statement of the witness admitted into evidence for substantive purposes under[*914] State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (1986), met the test for reliability.

Decided May 24, 1995 Shannon O. Louden, Barbara Jacobs and Linda L. Morkan, in support of the petition. John A. East III, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

2. Whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court properly admitted into evidence a .22 caliber revolver as having probative value that outweighed any prejudicial effect.

3. Whether we should repudiate the “missing witness rule,” first set forth in Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., 147 Conn. 672 (1960).