State v. Jimenez, 623 A.2d 1026 (Conn. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Jimenez, 623 A.2d 1026 (Conn. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Barron v. City Printing Co. (connappct, 1999-09-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Barron v. City Printing Co.
Conn. App. Ct. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Black v. London & Egazarian Associates, Inc., 30 Conn. App. 295, 304 , 620 A.2d 176 , cert. denied, 225 Conn. 916 , 623 A.2d 1024 (1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Johnson v. Preleski
Conn. · 2020 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Black v. London & Egazarian Associates, Inc., 30 Conn. App. 295, 300 , 620 A.2d 176 , cert. denied, 225 Conn. 916 , 623 A.2d 1024 (1993); see also Weiss v. Glemp, 127 Wn. 2d 726 , 729–30, 903 P.2d 455 (1995) (en banc) (summons left on windowsill of rectory, four feet from defendant, did not comply with personal service requirements).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
Jorge Jimenez
SC 14737.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 25, 1993.
623 A.2d 1026
Joseph G. Bruckmann, public defender, in support of the petition., Frederick W. Fawcett, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 406 (AC 11272), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“In a trial for assault in the first degree where the defense presented evidence that the defendant’s use of deadly physical force was based on his reasonable belief that the victim was about to use deadly physical force against him, and the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that notwithstanding the provisions of General Statutes § 53a-19 (a), a claim of self-defense[*917] would be defeated if the defendant was the first person to use physical force, did the Appellate Court correctly conclude it was not reasonably possible for the jury to have been misled?”
Decided March 25, 1993 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14737. Joseph G. Bruckmann, public defender, in support of the petition. Frederick W. Fawcett, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.