green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.0 score
“he intent required for sexual assault is not sexual gratification but the intent to use force”
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
State v. Rocco
he intent required for sexual assault is not sexual gratification but the intent to use force
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sinchak
(2×)
Our Supreme Court granted the defendant’s petition for certification; see State v. Sinchak, 243 Conn. 964 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998), appeal dismissed, 247 Conn. 440 , 721 A.2d 1193 (1999);5 but subsequently determined that the petition had been improvidently granted and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jefferson
See State v. Henning, supra, 220 Conn. 427 n.14 . 13 See also State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 182-83 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997) (first prong satisfied despite incomplete factual statement in written request when court aware of legal and factual basis for request via off record chambers conference and on record colloquy), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998); State v. Preston, 46 Conn. App. 778, 783 , 700 A.2d 1190 (1997) (defendant’s written request to charge and colloquy with court complied with first prong by alerting court to basis of request), rev’d on other grounds, 248 C…
discussed
Cited "see"
Peruccio v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See State v. Peruccio, 47 Conn. App. 188 , 702 A.2d 1200 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 964 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gibson
Although the admission of the uncharged misconduct evidence was an evidentiary ruling; see State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 175 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998); we are here concerned with the aftermath of that evidentiary ruling and its impact on the defendant’s constitutional rights, given the court’s final instruction.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Wargo
See State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 513, 523 , 447 A.2d 396 (1982).” State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 175 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998). “ ‘The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 519 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Erhardt
State v. Henry, 41 Conn. App. 169, 178 , 674 A.2d 862 (1996); see also State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 172 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997) (lesser degree of similarity required when other misconduct evidence used to show motive, intent), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McFarlane, supra, 165 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. McFarlane
“The high degree of similarity required for admissibility on the issue of identity is not required for misconduct evidence to be admissible on the issue of intent.” State v. Henry, 41 Conn. App. 169, 178 , 674 A.2d 862 (1996); see also State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 172 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997) (lesser degree of similarity required when other misconduct evidence used to show motive, intent), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
ANTHONY SINCHAK
v.
ANTHONY SINCHAK
SC 15854.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 15, 1998.
Pamela S. Nagy, assistant public defender, in support of the petition., John A. East III, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Connecticut Appellate Court (1)
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 134 (AC 16557), is granted, limited to the following issues:
“1. Whether the rule set forth in State v. McPhail, 213 Conn. 161 (1989), should be overruled and a midline approach should be used to decide whether one has[*965] been deprived of a fair and valid probable cause hearing?
The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15854. Pamela S. Nagy, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. John A. East III, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided January 15, 1998“2. Whether the Appellate Court correctly determined the state’s nondisclosure of exculpatory documents prior to or at the probable cause hearing did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial?”