State v. Santiago, 935 A.2d 152 (Conn. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Santiago, 935 A.2d 152 (Conn. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
48 citation events (48 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Bellamy (connappct, 2014-04-22)
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Bellamy
Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Santiago, 100 Conn. App. 236, 254 , 917 A.2d 1051 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 933 , 935 A.2d 153 (2007). 3 Although the defendant is correct that the record does not indicate that the defense was provided with a finalized version of the instructions, there is no indication from the record that the final instructions as to identification were altered in any way from the draft version except for the addition of language declaring that it is the state’s burden to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
examined Cited "see, e.g." State v. Dabate (3×)
Conn. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Santiago, 100 Conn. App. 236, 247 , 917 A.2d 1051 (‘‘the prosecutor . . . did not improperly appeal to the jury to infer guilt from the defendant’s having contacted an attorney and having received the counsel of an attorney’’), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 933 , 935 A.2d 152 (2007), and cert. denied, 284 Conn. 933 , 935 A.2d 153 (2007).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. DARRYL W. (2×)
Conn. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
See State v. Coward, 292 Conn. 296, 306, 310 , 972 A.2d 691 (2009) (refusing to grant Golding review for induced jury instruction but still analyzing claim under plain error doctrine); State v. Alston, 272 Conn. 432, 456 , 862 A.2d 817 (2005) (holding that defendant could not show manifest injustice under plain error doctrine “because he induced the trial court to take the very actions he now criticizes as erroneous, and he has failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting therefrom”); see also State v. Santiago, 100 Conn. App. 236 , 254 n.10, 917 A.2d 1051 (concluding that defendant’s r…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Charlie D. SANTIAGO.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 6, 2007.
935 A.2d 152
Rogers.
Published

Lauren Weisfeld, senior assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

Nancy L. Chupak, assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 100 Conn.App. 236, 917 A.2d 1051 (2007), is hereby ordered that no action is necessary on the petition.

ROGERS, C.J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.