green
Positive treatment
9.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Kirwan v. Kirwan
See Nashid v. Andrawis , 83 Conn. App. 115 , 121-22, 847 A.2d 1098 (plain error to permit future disputes regarding custody and visitation to be decided in arbitration), cert. denied, 270 Conn. 912 , 853 A.2d 528 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mullien
See State v. Grant, 83 Conn. App. 90, 98 , 848 A.2d 549 (“[w]e conclude that by virtue of the change from the anticipated testimony of the victim, which occurred at trial, the state showed good cause sufficient to meet the first prong of Practice Book § 36-18”), cert. denied, 270 Conn. 913 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gauthier
(2×)
Courts have wide discretion whether to admit prior inconsistent statements that have not satisfied the typical foundational requirements in § 6-10 (c) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence; see State v. Daniels, 83 Conn. App. 210, 215 , 848 A.2d 1235 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 913 , 853 A.2d 528 (2004); and we cannot say that the court abused its wide discretion in ruling these statements inadmissible.
cited
Cited "see"
EARL G. v. Commissioner of Correction
See State v. [G.], 83 Conn. App. 90 , 848 A.2d 549 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 913 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. JOSE G.
(4×)
Our rules of evidence provide that “[i]f a prior inconsistent statement made by a witness is not shown to or if the contents of the statement are not disclosed to the witness at the time the witness testifies, extrinsic evidence of the statement is inadmissible, except in the discretion of the court.” (Emphasis added.) Conn. Code Evid. § 6-10 (c); see State v. Daniels, 83 Conn. App. 210, 215 , 848 A.2d 1235 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 913 , 853 A.2d 528 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Quiles
(2×)
See State v. Daniels, 83 Conn. App. 210, 214 , 848 A.2d 1235 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 913 , 853 A.2d 528 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Miller
(2×)
See State v. Daniels, 83 Conn. App. 210, 218 , 848 A.2d 1235 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 913 , 853 A.2d 528 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Daniels v. State
(2×)
See State v. Daniels, 83 Conn. App. 210 , 848 A.2d 1235 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 913 , 853 A.2d 528 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Victor C.
Id.; see also State v. Grant, 83 Conn. App. 90, 93-95, 98 , 848 A.2d 549 (good cause shown when information amended to expand time frame to conform to victim’s testimony that changed from identifying specific date to providing date range when incidents occurred), cert. denied, 270 Conn. 913 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004); State v. Wilson F., supra, 77 Conn. App. 413 (good cause shown when amended date in information would more closely conform to anticipated testimony, testifying victim was young when incident occurred and incident occurred years prior).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jordan
See, e.g., State v. Grant, 83 Conn. App. 90, 93-95, 98 , 848 A.2d 549 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 913 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004); State v. Wilson F., supra, 77 Conn. App. 413 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. T.R.D.
“Neither the United States Supreme Court nor [this court] has held that the magnitude of the penalty determines the constitutionality of strict liability statutes.” State v. Nanowski, 56 Conn. App. 649, 656-57 , 746 A.2d 177 (rejecting defendant’s argument that General Statutes § 31-71a et seq. regarding payment of wages was unconstitutional as strict liability offense where amendments to statute increased penalty for conviction from misdemeanor to felony), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 952 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000); see State v. Kirk R., 271 Conn. 499 , 515 n.20, 857 A.2d 908 (2004) (noting tha…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. TRD
"Neither the United States Supreme Court nor [this court] has held that the magnitude of the penalty determines the constitutionality of strict liability statutes." State v. Nanowski, 56 Conn.App. 649, 656-57 , 746 A.2d 177 (rejecting defendant's argument that General Statutes § 31-71a et seq. regarding payment of wages was unconstitutional as strict liability offense where amendments to statute increased penalty for conviction from misdemeanor to felony), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 952 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000); see State v. Kirk R., 271 Conn. 499 , 515 n. 20, 857 A.2d 908 (2004) (noting that crim…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bengtson v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
Accordingly, in ascertaining the meaning of these statutes, we will “look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jones v. Kramer, 267 Conn. 336, 343 , 838 A.2d 170 (2004); see also Promoting Enduring Peace, Inc. v. Milford, 83 Conn. App. 124, 129 , 847 A.2d 1110 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 914 , 853 A.2d 528 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Mark DANIELS.
v.
Mark DANIELS.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 13, 2004.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
James B. Streeto, assistant public defender, in support of the petition.
Lisa A. Riggione, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 83 Conn.App. 210, 848 A.2d 1235 (2004), is denied.