green
Positive treatment
10.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Douglas C.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See State v. Payne, 240 Conn. 766 , 774–75, 695 A.2d 525 (1997) (citing State v. Velez, 17 Conn. App. 186, 199 , 551 A.2d 421 (1988), cert. denied, 210 Conn. 810 , 556 A.2d 610 , cert. denied, 491 U.S. 906 , 109 S. Ct. 3190 , 105 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Douglas C.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See State v. Payne, 240 Conn. 766 , 774–75, 695 A.2d 525 (1997) (citing State v. Velez, 17 Conn. App. 186, 199 , 551 A.2d 421 (1988), cert. denied, 210 Conn. 810 , 556 A.2d 610 , cert. denied, 491 U.S. 906 , 109 S. Ct. 3190 , 105 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Henry D.
See State v. Velez , 17 Conn.App. 186 , 189, 551 A.2d 421 (1988) ("neither the Supreme Court nor this court has required as a condition of its admissibility that there be no inconsistencies between the victim's testimony and that of the constancy of accusation witness[es]" [emphasis added] ), cert. denied, 210 Conn. 810 , 556 A.2d 610 , cert. denied, 491 U.S. 906 , 109 S.Ct. 3190 , 105 L.Ed.2d 698 (1989) ; see also State v. Carolina , 143 Conn. App. 438 , 450, 69 A.3d 341 (prior consistent statement when victim's testimony was "substantially ... consistent" with statements made during intervie…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Scruggs
(2×)
Id., 778-79, citing State v. Palangio, 24 Conn. App. 300, 305 , 588 A.2d 644 , cert. denied, 218 Conn. 911 , 591 A.2d 813 (1991); see also State v. Velez, 17 Conn. App. 186, 199 , 551 A.2d 421 (1988), cert. denied, 210 Conn. 810 , 556 A.2d 610 , cert. denied, 491 U.S. 906 , 109 S. Ct. 3190 , 105 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Tucker
State v. Daniels, 18 Conn. App. 134, 148 , 556 A.2d 1040 (1989); Manson v. State, supra. “[T]he element of compulsion, the utter subjugation of the victim’s free will, is no different in character if it results from the raised fist or the first blow. . . . [W]e are convinced that the phrase ‘use or threat of force or violence’ is a sound and reasonable attempt to capture the essence of the proscribed conduct [sexual assault], and we conclude that to require jury unanimity on ‘use of force’ as opposed to ‘threat of force’ . . . would be inconsistent with the aim of the legislatu…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Williams
The statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule to corroborate the complainant’s testimony by showing constancy of accusation.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Ouellette, 190 Conn. 84, 97 , 459 A.2d 1005 (1983); see also State v. Velez, 17 Conn. App. 186, 189 , 551 A.2d 421 (1988), cert. denied, 210 Conn. 810 , 556 A.2d 610 (1989). “[General Statutes] See. 54-86f. admissibility of evidence of prior sexual conduct.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
William Velez
v.
William Velez
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 9, 1989.
John R. Williams, in support of the petition., Susan C. Marks, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 17 Conn. App. 186, is denied.