State v. Jones, 704 A.2d 797 (Conn. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Jones, 704 A.2d 797 (Conn. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Vines (connappct, 2002-07-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Vines
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Jones, 46 Conn. App. 640, 646 , 700 A.2d 710 (“[e]very evidentiary ruling that denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error”), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 941 , 704 A.2d 797 (1997).
discussed Cited "see" State v. McHolland
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Jones, 46 Conn. App. 640, 646 , 700 A.2d 710 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 941 , 704 A.2d 797 (1997). 8 Although this court will review an unpreservéd constitutional claim if it satisfies the criteria of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), 9 unpreserved evidentiary claims are not afforded the same protection.
cited Cited "see" State v. Watts
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 46 Conn. App. 640, 652 , 700 A.2d 710 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 941 , 704 A.2d 797 (1997).
cited Cited "see" State v. Middlebrook
Conn. App. Ct. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Jones, 46 Conn. App. 640, 647 , 700 A.2d 710 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 941 , 704 A.2d 797 (1997).
cited Cited "see" State v. Murray
Conn. App. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Jones, 46 Conn. App. 640, 656 , 700 A.2d 710 , cert. denied, 243 Conn. 941 , 704 A.2d 797 (1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Brown
Conn. App. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Jones, 46 Conn. App. 640, 652 , 700 A.2d 710 (when defendant charged with conspiracy, prior misconduct evidence admissible to establish relationship between defendant and coconspirators), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 941 , 704 A.2d 797 (1997); see also State v. Harris, 43 Conn. App. 830 , 836–37, 687 A.2d 544 (1996) (when defendant charged with conspiracy to commit murder, evidence of drug operation admissible to show relationship among vari- ous individuals).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Davis
Conn. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Hill, supra, 237 Conn. 94 -96 (defendant who was charged with possession of illegal drugs seized in warrantless search of apartment in which he had no reasonable expectation of privacy had no standing to challenge search); State v. Altrui, 188 Conn. 161, 178-79 , 448 A.2d 837 (1982) (defendant who was charged with possession of weapons seized in warrantless search of automobile in which he had no reasonable expectation of privacy had no standing to challenge search); see also State v. Maia, 45 Conn. App. 679, 685 , 697 A.2d 707 (rejecting claim that defendant who was charge…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
MALEEK JONES
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 5, 1997.
704 A.2d 797
Susan M. Hankins, assistant public defender, in support of the petition., LeonF. Dalbec, Jr., assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Berdon.
Published

Lead Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 46 Conn. App. 640 (AC 16447), is denied.

Susan M. Hankins, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. LeonF. Dalbec, Jr., assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided November 5, 1997

Dissent

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant certification to review the following issues:

1. Whether the Appellate Court correctly refused to review the defendant’s claim that the trial court was derelict in failing to inquire into the defendant’s midtrial assertion to the court that as a result of the defendant’s indigence he was denied investigation and preparation of his case, and thereby denied his due process rights to effective representation, assistance of counsel, and a fair opportunity to defend against the state’s accusations, and his right to equal protection of the laws? See State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389, 414 n.24, 680 A.2d 147 (1996) (where the defendant’s claim, as in this case, is “based on the undisputed facts in the record, that, as a matter of law, judicial conduct denied him his sixth amendment right to counsel,” the claim is reviewable on direct appeal).

2. Whether the Appellate Court correctly held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding defense witness Lee Bember’s testimony of a third party’s confession that he shot the victim, and that the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense was not compromised by this exclusion? See Siemon v. Stoughton, 184 Conn. 547, 555, 440 A.2d 210 (1981). (“A defendant may give evidence concerning a third party’s involvement with the crime, as long as there is some evidence which directly connects the third party with the crime.”)

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