Younger v. Belcher, 967 A.2d 114 (Conn. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Younger v. Belcher, 967 A.2d 114 (Conn. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Turner v. State (connappct, 2017-04-18)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
cited Cited "see" Turner v. State
Conn. App. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holliday v. State , 111 Conn.App. 656 , 663, 960 A.2d 1101 (2008), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 902 , 967 A.2d 112 (2009).
cited Cited "see" State v. Sherman
Conn. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Spikes, 111 Conn. App. 543, 554 , 961 A.2d 426 (2008) , cert, denied, 291 Conn. 901 , 967 A.2d 114 , cert, denied, 558 U.S. 898 , 130 S. Ct. 249 , 175 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Randolph v. Mambrino
Conn. App. Ct. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
This ‘‘opportunity for a new trial when new evidence comes to light pro- vides a [criminal] defendant [a] . . . critical proce- dural mechanism for remedying an injustice.’’ Seebeck v. State, 246 Conn. 514, 531 , 717 A.2d 1161 (1998); see also Holliday v. State, 111 Conn. App. 656 , 662–63, 960 A.2d 1101 (2008) (same), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 902 , 967 A.2d 112 (2009).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Kalil
Conn. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Spikes, 111 Conn. App. 543, 557 , 961 A.2d 426 (2008) (evidence of footprints matching defendant’s boots in direction of and inside screened in porch, partial removal of screen door, and damage to window of dwelling allowed jury to find that defendant forcibly entered dwelling and to infer that defendant intended to commit burglary and larceny), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 901 , 967 A.2d 114 , cert. denied, 558 U.S. 898 , 130 S. Ct. 249 , 175 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Cote
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id., 110; see also State v. Spikes, 111 Conn. App. 543, 555-56 , 961 A.2d 426 (2008) (“[i]n the present case, on the basis of evidence that the defendant was seen at or near 291 Church Street at about the time of the burglary and that he had on his person at the time he was arrested some of the jewelry stolen from the premises, we conclude that the jury reasonably could have found that he illegally entered 291 Church Street on February 19, 2005, and stole that jewelry”), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 901 , 967 A.2d 114 , cert. denied, 558 U.S. 898 , 130 S. Ct. 249 , 175 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Kalil
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id., 110; see also State v. Spikes, 111 Conn. App. 543, 555-56 , 961 A.2d 426 (2008) (“[i]n the present case, on the basis of evidence that the defendant was seen at or near 291 Church Street at about the time of the burglary and that he had on his person at the time he was arrested some of the jewelry stolen from the premises, we conclude that the jury reasonably could have found that he illegally entered 291 Church Street on February 19, 2005, and stole that jewelry”), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 901 , 967 A.2d 114 , cert. denied, 558 U.S. 898 , 130 S. Ct. 249 , 175 L.
Tanisha YOUNGER
v.
Mark D. BELCHER et al.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 11, 2009.
967 A.2d 114
Published

Mark D. Belcher, pro se, in support of the petition.

The named defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 112 Conn.App. 901, 963 A.2d 114 (2009), is denied.