green
Positive treatment
6.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Martinez
(2×)
See State v. Guitard, 61 Conn.App. 531, 537 , 765 A.2d 30 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 952 , 770 A.2d 32 (2001).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. St. Cyr
See State v. Guitard, 61 Conn. App. 531, 541 , 765 A.2d 30 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 952 , 770 A.2d 32 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. J.M.F.
If, on the other hand, he were to be found guilty and a final judgment were rendered by the court’s imposition of the sentence, the defendant then would have a right to appeal from any adverse rulings on his motion to reconsider the appointment of a special public defender; see, e.g., State v. Guitard, 61 Conn. App. 531 , 535–39, 765 A.2d 30 (Appellate Court considered and rejected defendant’s postconviction challenge to trial court’s denial of motion for standby counsel), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 952 , 770 A.2d 32 (2001); which is exactly what the defendant has done in the present appe…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. J.M.F.
If, on the other hand, he were to be found guilty and a final judgment were rendered by the court’s imposition of the sentence, the defendant then would have a right to appeal from any adverse rulings on his motion to reconsider the appointment of a special public defender; see, e.g., State v. Guitard, 61 Conn. App. 531 , 535–39, 765 A.2d 30 (Appellate Court considered and rejected defendant’s postconviction challenge to trial court’s denial of motion for standby counsel), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 952 , 770 A.2d 32 (2001); which is exactly what the defendant has done in the present appe…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. J.M.F.
If, on the other hand, he were to be found guilty and a final judgment were rendered by the court's imposition of the sentence, the defendant then would have a right to appeal from any adverse rulings on his motion to reconsider the appointment of a special public defender; see, e.g., State v. Guitard , 61 Conn.App. 531 , 535-39, 765 A.2d 30 (Appellate Court considered and rejected defendant's postconviction challenge to trial court's denial of motion for standby counsel), cert. denied, *34 255 Conn. 952 , 770 A.2d 32 (2001) ; which is exactly what the defendant has done in the present appeal.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Scruggs
(2×)
The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court properly had instructed the jury that “it was not permitted to find the defendant guilty for committing ‘any act,’ but must find that he acted wilfully and ‘that he either intended the resulting injury to the victim, or he knew that the injury would occur, or that his conduct was of such a character that it demonstrated a reckless disregard of the consequences.’ ” Id., 81; see also State v. Guitard, 61 Conn. App. 531, 543 , 765 A.2d 30 (applying Torrice standard), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 952 , 770 A.2d 32 (2001); State v. Cutro, 37…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
HERMINIO SOTOMAYOR
v.
HERMINIO SOTOMAYOR
SC 16495.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 22, 2001.
Jeremiah Donovan, in support of the petition., Susann E. Gill, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 61 Conn. App. 364 (AC 20518), is granted, limited to the following issue:
[*953] The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16495. Jeremiah Donovan, in support of the petition. Susann E. Gill, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided March 22, 2001“Was it harmful error for the trial court to instruct the jury that ‘[o]ne who uses a deadly weapon upon the vital parts of another will be deemed to have intended the probable result of that act,’ to repeat the instruction in response to an inquiry from the jury, and to decline to instruct the jury that use of a deadly weapon could evince an extreme indifference to human life (an element of manslaughter in the first degree) rather than an intent to kill?”
VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.