State v. Walters, 899 A.2d 36 (Conn. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Walters, 899 A.2d 36 (Conn. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
47 citation events (47 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Cote (connappct, 2012-07-03)
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Cote (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. McCleese, 94 Conn. App. 510, 515 , 892 A.2d 343 (State’s inadvertent question regarding the defendant’s pretrial incarceration did not deprive defendant of fair trial where “the defendant was on trial for murder, conspiracy to commit murder and assault.” This court concluded that “[i]t is reasonable to believe that the jury could have suspected that the defendant, at some point before trial, had been incarcerated.”), cert. denied, 278 Conn. 908 , 899 A.2d 36 (2006); State v. Marshall, 87 Conn. App. 592, 604-605 , 867 A.2d 57 (prosecutor’s two references to “lockup�…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Walker v. Commissioner of Correction (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
The [s]tate must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the [shackling] error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brawley, supra, 321 Conn. 588–89; see also State v. McCarthy, 210 Conn. App. 1 , 41–42, 268 A.3d 91 , cert. denied, 342 Conn. 910 , 271 A.3d 136 (2022). 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 15 Walker v. Commissioner of Correction There is nothing sacrosanct about a defendant’s pretrial incarceration.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McCleese, 94 Conn. A…
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Bazemore
Conn. App. Ct. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also State v. Holmes, 94 Conn. App. 494 , 503 n.4, 892 A.2d 969 , cert. denied, 278 Conn. 908 , 899 A.2d 35 (2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Swain (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
The occasional use of rhetorical devices is simply fair argument. . . . [W]e are convinced that reasonable jurors are able to differentiate between lawyers’ ripostes and actual evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Boyd, 89 Conn. App. 1, 41 , 872 A.2d 477 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 921 , 883 A.2d 1247 (2005); see also State v. McCleese, 94 Conn. App. 510, 517-18 , 892 A.2d 343 , cert. denied, 278 Conn. 908 , 899 A.2d 36 (2006).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
Andre Walters
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Apr 25, 2006.
899 A.2d 36
Glenn W. Falk, special public defender, in support of the petition., Rita M. Shair, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 94 Conn. App. 297 (AC 26651), is denied.

[*909] Glenn W. Falk, special public defender, in support of the petition. Rita M. Shair, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided April 25, 2006