green
Positive treatment
10.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Whitfield
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Therefore, [t]he [jury] can . . . decide what — all, none, or some — of a witness’ testimony to accept or reject.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 164.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Thompson
See State v. Mitchell, 56 Conn. App. 561, 567-68 , 744 A.2d 927 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 910 , 754 A.2d 162 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Jevarjian
See State v. Mitchell, 56 Conn. App. 561, 567-68 , 744 A.2d 927 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 910 , 754 A.2d 162 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Alexander
(2×)
This fact indicates that the defendant had not maintained the location and the items within it in a private manner at the time of the detectives’ entry; see State v. Boyd, 57 Conn. App. 176, 185 , 749 A.2d 637 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 912 , 754 A.2d 162 (2000); and is one of the factors considered in determining whether he manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the common hallway.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Smith
See State v. Boyd, 57 Conn. App. 176, 183 , 749 A.2d 637 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 912 , 754 A.2d 162 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Vallejo
(2×)
See State v. Boyd, 57 Conn. App. 176, 187 , 749 A.2d 637 (2000) (objective expectation of privacy stems from place where “society is prepared, because of its code and values and its notions of custom and civility, to give deference to a manifested expectation of privacy” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 253 Conn. 912 , 754 A.2d 162 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Doriss
See State v. Thorp, 57 Conn. App. 112, 116 , 747 A.2d 537 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 913 , 754 A.2d 162 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Imperiale
Of course, this includes the authority to require a probationer to undergo sex offender treatment when such treatment is reasonably necessary; see, e.g., State v. Smith, supra, 255 Conn. 844 (sex offender treatment was ‘‘a key component of the [defendant’s] rehabilitative process because it was directly connected to one of the underlying crimes to which the defendant had pleaded guilty’’); see also State v. Thorp, 57 Conn. App. 112, 117 , 747 A.2d 537 (under § 53a-30, sex offender treatment may be imposed as condition of probation, even when it was not explicitly included in court-o…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Houghtaling
Ed. 2d 220 (1979); see also State v. Boyd, 57 Conn. App. 176, 185 , 749 A.2d 637 (‘‘a subjective expectation of privacy rests on finding conduct [through which a defendant] has demonstrated an intention to keep activities or things private and free from knowing exposure to others’ view’’), cert. denied, 253 Conn. 912 , 754 A.2d 162 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Houghtaling
See, e.g., Smith v. Maryland , 442 U.S. 735 , 740, 99 S.Ct. 2577 , 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) ; see also **342 State v. Boyd , 57 Conn.App. 176 , 185, 749 A.2d 637 ("a subjective expectation of privacy rests on finding conduct [through which a defendant] has demonstrated an intention to keep activities or things private and free from knowing exposure to others' view"), cert. denied, 253 Conn. 912 , 754 A.2d 162 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Houghtaling
Whether a defendant’s actual expectation of privacy . . . is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable involves a fact- specific inquiry into all the relevant circumstances.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hill, 237 Conn. 81, 92 , 675 A.2d 866 (1996). ‘‘Furthermore, [t]he defendant bears the burden of establishing the facts necessary to demonstrate a basis for standing . . . and the trial court’s finding [on the question of standing] will not be overturned unless it is legally or logically inconsistent with the facts found or involves…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Kendrick
Ed. 2d 291 (1995); see also State v. Mitchell, 56 Conn. App. 561, 564 , 744 A.2d 927 (“[ajbsent exigent circumstances or consent, the police, even armed with an arrest warrant, cannot search for a subject in the home of a third party, without first obtaining a search warrant directing entry”), cert. denied, 253 Conn. 910 , 754 A.2d 162 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. LaFountain
Our Supreme Court concluded that “subsequent case law has made clear that the Guilfoyle rule is one of disclosure, akin to that of Brady v. Maryland, [supra, 373 U.S. 83 ], and that there was no Guilfoyle violation because the defendant was aware of [the key witness] and the potential substance of his testimony, and could have taken action to procure his testimony.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Tomas D., supra, 296 Conn. 510 ; see also State v. Johnson, 57 Conn. App. 156, 162 , 748 A.2d 334 (state fully complied with Guilfoyle rule where information disclosed to defendant without being offer…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. TOMAS D.
See State v. Mitchell, supra, 165 ; see also State v. Johnson, 57 Conn. App. 156, 161-62 , 748 A.2d 334 (prosecutor complied with rule by disclosing information that victim had given defendant permission to visit her room after sexual assault, and did not have “a further duty to present that information to the trier of fact when the defendant failed to offer the evidence to the jury”), cert. denied, 253 Conn. 912 , 754 A.2d 162 (2000); State v. Jurgensen, 42 Conn. App. 751, 762 , 681 A.2d 981 (“the state is not under an obligation to call every competent witness to testify”), cert. den…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Payne
(2×)
See id.; see also State v. Boyd, 57 Conn. App. 176, 188 , 749 A.2d 637 (considering, inter alia, property interests to determine whether expectation of privacy is one society would deem reasonable), cert. denied, 253 Conn. 912 , 754 A.2d 162 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Armstrong
See, e.g., State v. Thorp, 57 Conn. App. 112, 117-18 , 747 A.2d 537 (determining that § 53a-30 (b) authorized office of adult probation to require probationer convicted of sexual assault to receive sex offender treatment, even though sentencing judge had not imposed such condition), cert. denied, 253 Conn. 913 , 754 A.2d 162 (2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
RONALD THORP
v.
RONALD THORP
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
May 18, 2000.
Donald D. Dakers, special public defender, in support of the petition., Marjorie Allen Dauster, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 57 Conn. App. 112 (AC 18539), is denied.