State v. Papandrea, 994 A.2d 1289 (Conn. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Papandrea, 994 A.2d 1289 (Conn. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ruiz v. Commissioner of Correction (connappct, 2020-02-18)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Ruiz v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Velasco v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn. App. 164, 172 , 987 A.2d 1031 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 901 , 994 A.2d 1289 (2010). ‘‘An attorney’s line of questioning on exami- nation of a witness clearly is tactical in nature. [As such, this] court will not, in hindsight, second-guess counsel’s trial strategy. . . .
discussed Cited "see" Mukhtaar v. Commissioner of Correction (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Velasco v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn. App. 164 , 166 n.2, 987 A.2d 1031 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 901 , 994 A.2d 1289 (2010).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Crenshaw v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Velasco v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn. App. 164, 172 , 987 A.2d 1031 (attorney’s line of questioning of witness clearly is tacti- cal in nature and this court will not second-guess coun- sel’s trial strategy), cert. denied, 297 Conn. 901 , 994 A.2d 1289 (2010); see also Ricardo R. v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 185 Conn. App. 802 (‘‘[a]lthough the petitioner, with the benefit of hindsight, may now prefer that trial counsel had undermined [the witness’] testimony . . . he fails to sufficiently demonstrate how the line of questioning [trial counsel] actually…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Inglis v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
It was not until 2012, three years after the petitioner’s criminal trial, that our Supreme Court decided to abandon Kemp and McClen- don and embrace the notion that ‘‘[t]he reliability of eyewitness identifications frequently is not a matter within the knowledge of an average juror and . . . the admission of expert testimony on the issue does not invade the province of the jury to determine what weight to give the evidence.’’ Id., 251–52; see also Vel- asco v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn. App. 164 , 172–73, 987 A.2d 1031 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 901 , 994 A.2d 1289 (201…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
JOHN PAPANDREA
SC 18616.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
May 20, 2010.
994 A.2d 1289
Moira L. Buckley, in support of the petition., Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 120 Conn. App. 224 (AC 29768), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the state of Connecticut had presented sufficient evidence of the defendant’s intent to commit larceny?”

VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.

Moira L. Buckley, in support of the petition. Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided May 20, 2010