State v. Gonzalez-Rivera, 717 A.2d 238 (Conn. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Gonzalez-Rivera, 717 A.2d 238 (Conn. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
47 citation events (29 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Jose R. (conn, 2021-03-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Jose R.
Conn. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
The prosecutor’s questions in the present case did not ask for answers from the defendant or anyone else; instead, they were employed as a rhetorical device ask- ing ‘‘the jurors to refer to their knowledge of human nature to ascertain an answer to the question.’’ State v. Harris, 48 Conn. App. 717, 722 , 711 A.2d 769 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 922 , 717 A.2d 238 (1998); see id. (prosecutor’s rhetorical question ‘‘ ‘[w]hy would you do that’ ’’ was not improper because it did ‘‘not point to the defendant’s decision not to testify’’); see also State v. O’Brien-…
discussed Cited "see" Harris v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
The relevant facts and procedural history related to the underlying conviction were set forth by this court in a decision affirming the petitioner’s conviction; see State v. Harris, 48 Conn. App. 717 , 711 A.2d 769 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 922 , 717 A.2d 238 (1998); and in the habeas court’s memorandum of decision.
cited Cited "see" State v. Daniels
Conn. App. Ct. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Harris, 48 Conn. App. 717, 720 , 711 A.2d 769 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 922 , 717 A.2d 238 (1998).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Stagnitta
Conn. App. Ct. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Clark, 48 Conn. App. 812, 825 , 713 A.2d 834 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 921 , 717 A.2d 238 (1998); State v. Gelormino, 24 Conn. App. 563, 571-72 , 590 A.2d 480 , cert. denied, 219 Conn. 911 , 593 A.2d 136 (1991); State v. Reyes, supra, 19 Conn. App. 192 -93.
cited Cited "see" State v. Rivera
Conn. App. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Clark, 48 Conn. App. 812, 829 , 713 A.2d 834 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 921 , 717 A.2d 238 (1998).
cited Cited "see" Krupien v. Rai
Conn. App. Ct. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Clark, 48 Conn. App. 812, 831 , 713 A.2d 834 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 921 , 717 A.2d 238 (1998).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Torres
Conn. App. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
See State v. Gibson , 270 Conn. 55 , 67, 850 A.2d 1040 (2004) ("[t]o allow [a] defendant to seek reversal [after] ... his trial strategy has failed would amount to allowing him to induce potentially harmful error, and then ambush the state [and the trial court] with that claim on appeal" [internal quotation marks omitted] ); see also State v. Clark , 48 Conn.App. 812 , 820 n. 6, 713 A.2d 834 ("[a]n appellant cannot create a reviewable claim because his appellate counsel disagrees with the strategy of his trial counsel"), cert. denied, 245 Conn. 921 , 717 A.2d 238 (1998).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Andrews
Conn. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
In Malave, we stated that ‘‘we do not prohibit counsel from making appropriate comment, in closing arguments, about the absence of a particular witness, insofar as that witness’ absence may reflect on the weakness of the opposing party’s case. . . . [As] long as counsel does not directly exhort the jury to draw an adverse inference by virtue of the witness’ absence . . . [such comment is allowed].’’ (Footnote omitted.) Id., 739; see also State v. Clark, 48 Conn. App. 812 , 831–32, 713 A.2d 834 (comment on missing witnesses proper when prosecutor did not ask jurors to draw adver…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Bereis (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2009 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare State v. Alston, supra, 441-42 (testimony that “[defendant] terminated the interview” proper because it merely described investigative efforts of police) and State v. Gonzalez-Rivera, 48 Conn. App. 784, 803 , 713 A.2d 847 (brief testimony by two witnesses that defendant terminated interview not in violation of Doyle because testimony established sequence of events), cert. denied, 245 Conn. 923 , 717 A.2d 238 (1998).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Lewis
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
Prior consistent statements of a witness are generally regarded as hearsay and are not admissible at trial, either for their truth or for the purpose of rehabilitating a witness’ damaged credibility.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Hines, 243 Conn. 796, 803 , 709 A.2d 522 (1998); see also State v. Harris, 48 Conn. App. 717, 730 , 711 A.2d 769 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 922 , 717 A.2d 238 (1998).
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
MARCUS GONZALEZ-RIVERA
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 8, 1998.
717 A.2d 238
Pamela S. Nagy, in support of the petition., LeonF. Dalbec, Jr., assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 784 (AC 17153), is denied.