State v. Cepeda, 732 A.2d 180 (Conn. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Cepeda, 732 A.2d 180 (Conn. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Calderon (connappct, 2004-04-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Calderon (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Cepeda, 51 Conn. App. 409, 416 , 723 A.2d 331 (“‘[o]nly relevant evidence may be elicited through cross-examination’ ”), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 912 , 732 A.2d 180 (1999).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Rivera (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Cepeda, 61 Conn. App. 409 , 413 n.8, 723 A.2d 331 , cert. denied, 248 Conn. 912 , 732 A.2d 180 (1999).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Barber (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Cepeda, 51 Conn. App. 409 , 413 n.8, 723 A.2d 331 , cert. denied, 248 Conn. 912 , 732 A.2d 180 (1999). “[W]e hold that a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Andres C. (Dissent) (2×)
Conn. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
See State v. Anonymous (83–FG), 190 Conn. 715 , 734–36, 463 A.2d 533 (1983) (remanding case for hearing to determine whether witness’ unsigned field notes were adopted or approved under rules of practice); see also State v. Cepeda, 51 Conn. App. 409, 435 , 723 A.2d 331 , cert. denied, 248 Conn. 912 , 732 A.2d 180 (1999); State v. Black, 23 Conn. App. 241, 244 , 579 A.2d 1107 , cert. denied, 216 Conn. 827 , 582 A.2d 204 (1990).8 8 As the majority correctly observes, the adoption or approval requirement is derived from the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 , and ‘‘this court consistently h…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
IVAN CEPEDA
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Apr 7, 1999.
732 A.2d 180
Paul R. Kraus, in support of the petition., Paul J. Fereneek, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Berdon.
Published

Lead Opinion

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 51 Conn. App. 409 (AC 16082), is denied.

Dissent

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal.