State v. Smith, 754 A.2d 164 (Conn. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Smith, 754 A.2d 164 (Conn. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
31 citation events (28 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Taylor v. Silverstein (connappct, 2007-11-20)
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000 2013 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
cited Cited "see" Taylor v. Silverstein
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Morgan (2×)
Conn. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 57 Conn. App. 290, 298-99 , 748 A.2d 883 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 916 , 754 A.2d 164 (2000) (concluding that even if court had discounted all other evidence of defendant’s identity, evidence was sufficient for conviction based solely on witnesses’ testimony identifying defendant); State v. Rivera, 74 Conn. App. 129, 138 , 810 A.2d 824 (2002) (noting that victim had identified defendant from array of photographs and at trial, court concluded that victim’s testimony alone was sufficient for jury to find that defendant had shot victim). *803 In the present case, we conc…
discussed Cited "see" State v. Farnum (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Smith, 57 Conn. App. 290, 297-99 , 748 A.2d 883 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 916 , 754 A.2d 164 (2000).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Rodriguez (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Atkins, 57 Conn. App. 248, 255 , 748 A.2d 343 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 916 , 754 A.2d 164 (2000); see also State v. Malone, 40 Conn. App. 470, 476-79 , 671 A.2d 1321 (discussing admission of prior inconsistent statements in light of criminal defendant’s right, under state, federal constitutions, to opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses), cert. denied, 237 Conn. 904 , 674 A.2d 1332 (1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Pugh (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Connecticut case law has previously recognized in-court identifications and identifications from fairly presented photographic arrays as sufficient evidence by themselves to allow the trier of fact to conclude that it was the defendant who committed the crimes charged." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 801-802 , 877 A.2d 739 ; see also State v. Smith , 57 Conn. App. 290 , 298-99, 748 A.2d 883 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 916 , 754 A.2d 164 (2000).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Singer (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Smith, 57 Conn. App. 290, 298-99 , 748 A.2d 883 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 916 , 754 A.2d 164 (2000).
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
MICHAEL SMITH
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
May 31, 2000.
754 A.2d 164
William B. Westcott, special public defender, in support of the petition.
Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 57 Conn. App. 290 (AC 18260), is denied.