State v. Freeman, 789 A.2d 996 (Conn. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Freeman, 789 A.2d 996 (Conn. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: State v. Abdulaziz (connappct, 2025-04-08)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Abdulaziz
Conn. App. Ct. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Guadalupe, 66 Conn. App. 819, 827 , 786 A.2d 494 (2001) (‘‘[w]hen interpreting statutes, we afford statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning and refrain from reading into statutes provisions that are not clearly stated’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 907 , 789 A.2d 996 (2002).
cited Cited "see" State v. McArthur
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Fernandez
Conn. App. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
"Where, as here, a defendant's claimed entitlement to make a missing witness argument rests on mere speculation, the court's exercise of discretion in denying permission to make such argument does not reflect an abuse of its discretion." State v. Mungroo , supra, 104 Conn.App. at 678 -79 , 935 A.2d 229 ; see also State v. Graham , 67 Conn.App. 45 , 49, 787 A.2d 11 (2001) (trial court did not abuse discretion in precluding missing witness argument because defendant "offered only a blanket statement that [the witness'] failure to testify demonstrated a weakness in the state's case"), cert. denie…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sturgeon v. Sturgeon
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
“In argument before the jury, counsel may comment upon facts properly in evidence and upon reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Skrzypiec v. Noonan, supra, 228 Conn. 16 ; see also State v. Ross, 18 Conn. App. 423, 432 , 558 A.2d 1015 (1989) (party entitled to comment on weakness of opposing party’s case by bringing to jury’s attention failure to call witnesses to support its own factual theories with witnesses). “[A] party cannot merely comment on the failure of the opposing party to present a witness without first providing a factual or evident…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
STEPHEN FREEMAN
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 3, 2002.
789 A.2d 996
Robert E. Byron, special public defender, in support of the petition., Robert M. Brennan, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 67 Conn. App. 902 (AC 20326), is denied.