green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.9 score
“the defendant was required not only to know of the presence of narcotics, but also that he intended to and did exercise dominion and control over the drugs”
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Respass
the defendant was required not only to know of the presence of narcotics, but also that he intended to and did exercise dominion and control over the drugs
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Purvis
Glassine bags are commonly used to package and sell narcotics; see State v. Elijah, 42 Conn. App. 687, 690 , 682 A.2d 506 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 936 , 684 A.2d 709 (1996); and are considered to be drug paraphernalia.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Allan
See State v. Elijah, 42 Conn. App. 687, 697 , 682 A.2d 506 (‘‘[a]n overt act . . . may be committed by either coconspira- tor’’), cert. denied, 239 Conn. 936 , 684 A.2d 709 (1996); id., 695 (‘‘it does not diminish the probative force of the evidence that it consists, in whole or in part, of evidence that is circumstantial rather than direct’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Trantolo v. State, No. Cv 97-0569475s (Jun. 8, 1999)
See Srager v. Koenig , 42 Conn. App. 617 , 619 , 681 A.2d 323 , cert. denied, CT Page 7083 239 Conn. 935 , 684 A.2d 709 (1996) (discussing imposition of sanctions because plaintiff failed to timely file an appellant's brief after receiving five extensions); Olshefski v. Stenner , Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 351899 (September 27, 1990, Clark, J.) ( 2 Conn. L.
cited
Cited "see"
Koenig v. Srager, No. Cv 33 86 81 (Sep. 12, 1997)
See Srager v. Koenig, 42 Conn. App. 617 , 681 A.2d 323 cert. denied 239 Conn. 935 -36, 684 A.2d 709 (1996).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Shartouni v. Park Cadillac-Olds.-Pontiac, No. Cv98-033 11 52s (Dec. 2, 1999)
See Cawley v. Schochat , 21 Conn. App. 118 , 121 (1990); see also Srager v. Koenig , 42 Conn. App. 617 , 620 , 681 A.2d 323 , cert denied, 239 Conn. 935 , 684 A.2d 709 (1996).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Crump
See State v. Hanks, 39 Conn. 333, 343 , 665 A.2d 102 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 926 , 666 A.2d 1187 (1995); see also State v. Elijah, 42 Conn. App. 687, 696-97 , 684 A.2d 709 (1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
RAYMOND MARQUIS
v.
RAYMOND MARQUIS
SC 15559.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 29, 1996.
Matthew J. Collins, in support of the petition., James M. Ralls, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Connecticut (1)
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 42 Conn. App. 186 (AC 13373), is granted, limited to the following issue:
“May a trial court, in exercising its discretion under State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061 (1988), and General Statutes § 54-86g, take into account the fact that the state’s motion is supported by expert testimony and, therefore, order the child witness to be examined by the defendant’s expert?”