State v. Komisarjevsky, 21 A.3d 465 (Conn. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Komisarjevsky, 21 A.3d 465 (Conn. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Artis (connappct, 2012-07-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Artis
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
See State v. Wheat, 52 Conn. App. 115, 116 , 725 A.2d 993 (“[w]e do not examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact could have reached a conclusion other than the one reached . . . nor do we retry the case or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 249 Conn. 901 , 732 A.2d 777 (1999); see also State v. Sanchez, 128 Conn. App. 1 , 9 n.4, 15 A.3d 1182 (“[w]e must defer to the [finder] of fact’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses that is made on the basis of its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeano…
State of Connecticut
v.
Joshua Komisarjevsky
SC 18797.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 8, 2011.
21 A.3d 465
Walter C. Bansley III, Jeremiah Donovan and Todd A. Bussert, in support of the petition., Harry Weller, senior assistant state’s attorney, and William S. Fish, Jr., Michael C. Sorensen and Amy E. Markim, in opposition.
Rogers, Norcott, Zarella.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 33360) is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Does the trial court’s decision to grant an interve-nor’s motion to unseal a ‘witness list’ constitute a final judgment permitting interlocutory review?
“2. If the decision is an appealable final judgment, did the trial court improperly grant the intervenor’s motion to unseal the ‘witness list?’ ”
ROGERS, C. J., and NORCOTT and ZARELLA, Js., would deny the defendant’s petition for certification for appeal.