green
Positive treatment
Trending · 72 recent citers
13.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Marcus
(2×)
Page 6 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 8 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 State v. Marcus Construing the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, we conclude that, on the basis of Griggs’ testimony, the trial court reasonably could have found that Griggs suffered a physical injury. ‘‘ ‘Physical injury’ means impairment of physical condi- tion or pain . . . .’’ General Statutes § 53a-3 (3); see State v. Cruz, 71 Conn. App. 190 , 214–15, 800 A.2d 1243 (concluding that definition of physical injury under § 53a-3 (3) applies to charge of assault of peace officer under § 53a-1…
cited
Cited "see"
Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction
See State v. Barlow, 70 Conn. App. 232, 249 , 797 A.2d 605 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 929 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Ruiz-Pacheco
See State v. Estrada , 71 Conn. App. 344 , 357, 802 A.2d 873 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1068 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction
See State v. Barlow, 70 Conn. App. 232 , 797 A.2d 605 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 929 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction
See State v. Barlow, 70 Conn. App. 232 , 797 A.2d 605 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 929 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Webster
This evidentiary burden could have been sustained by means of circumstantial, rather than direct, evidence of delivery; see State v. Estrada, 71 Conn. App. 344, 351 , 802 A.2d 873 , cert, denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1068 (2002); but it could not be the result of mere speculation or conjecture.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Kendall
(4×)
See State v. Colon, 71 Conn. App. 217, 245-46 , 800 A.2d 1268 (“[w]e are not at liberty to overrule or discard the decisions of our Supreme Court but are bound by them” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert, denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. McArthur
(2×)
See State v. Cruz, 71 Conn. App. 190, 211-12 , 800 A.2d 1243 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Jackson
(2×)
See State v. Colon, 71 Conn. App. 217, 225 , 800 A.2d 1268 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Santiago
(2×)
See State v. Colon, 71 Conn. App. 217, 224-25 , 800 A.2d 1268 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Rivera
(2×)
See State v. Colon, 71 Conn. App. 217, 224-25 , 800 A.2d 1268 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Trice
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Colon, 71 Conn. App. 217, 234 , 800 A.2d 1268 (rejecting defendant’s argument ‘‘that the doctrine on opening the door is not a recognized hear- say exception,’’ and concluding, instead, that hearsay testimony was properly admitted after defendant opened door to such evidence), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002); see also State v. Brown, supra, 309 Conn. 479 (pursuant to doctrine on opening door, court may permit rebuttal evidence ‘‘[e]ven though the rebuttal evidence would ordinarily be inad- missible on other grounds’’ (internal quotation …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Samuel U.
(2×)
This court previously has made clear, however, that ‘‘there is no constitutional right to the disclosure of uncharged misconduct evi- dence, which is inculpatory in nature.’’ State v. O’Brien- Veader, supra, 318 Conn. 545 ; see also State v. Colon, 71 Conn. App. 217 , 240–41, 800 A.2d 1268 (in response to arguments that state ‘‘was required to disclose its intent to use prior misconduct evidence’’ by certain date, court held that there is ‘‘no constitutional right to the disclosure of such evidence’’), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Morlo M.
(2×)
Compare State v. Colon, 71 Conn. App. 217, 226 , 800 A.2d 1268 (concluding that § 53a-59 (a) (3) requires that the defendant ‘‘must be shown to have had the general intent to engage in conduct evincing an extreme indifference to human life’’ (emphasis added)), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002), with State v. Jackson, supra, 184 Conn. App. 433 (‘‘[a] jury cannot find a defendant guilty of unlawful restraint unless it first [finds] that he . . . restricted the victim’s movements with the intent to interfere substantially with her liberty’’ (emphasis added; int…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Morlo M.
(2×)
Compare State v. Colon, 71 Conn. App. 217, 226 , 800 A.2d 1268 (concluding that § 53a-59 (a) (3) requires that the defendant ‘‘must be shown to have had the general intent to engage in conduct evincing an extreme indifference to human life’’ (emphasis added)), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002), with State v. Jackson, supra, 184 Conn. App. 433 (‘‘[a] jury cannot find a defendant guilty of unlawful restraint unless it first [finds] that he . . . restricted the victim’s movements with the intent to interfere substantially with her liberty’’ (emphasis added; int…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Joseph R. B.
A prosecutor also may comment on the failure of a defendant to support his factual theories." State v. Smalls , supra, 78 Conn.App. at 543 , 827 A.2d 784 ; see also State v. Colon , 70 Conn.App. 707 , 713, 799 A.2d 317 (prosecutor's comments as to lack of explanation for defendant's fleeing after crime constituted attack on defendant's theory of case, not improper comment on failure to testify), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 933 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Stanley
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Colon, 71 Conn. App. 217, 241 , 800 A.2d 1268 (‘‘[w]here discovery concerns inculpatory evidence, there exists no constitutional right to the disclosure of such evi- dence and, therefore, the rules of the court regulate any such disclosure’’), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. O'Brien-Veader
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Colon, 71 Conn. App. 217, 241 , 800 A.2d 1268 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mungroo
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. Cruz, 71 Conn. App. *678 190, 211-12, 800 A.2d 1243 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 934 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Daniels v. Alander
See, e.g., State v. Barlow, 70 Conn. App. 232, 249 , 797 A.2d 605 (declining to afford plain error review), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 929 , 806 A.2d 1067 (2002); State v. Ancona, 69 Conn. App. 29 , 36 n.10, 797 A.2d 1138 (declining to afford review under Golding), cert. granted on other grounds, 260 Conn. 928 , 798 A.2d 970 (2002); State v. Wright, 62 Conn. App. 743, 756 , 774 A.2d 1015 (declining to afford review under Golding), cert. denied, 256 Conn. 919 , 774 A.2d 142 (2001); State v. Smith, 57 Conn. App. 478, 483 , 749 A.2d 67 (2000) (declining to afford review under Golding); State v. Salv…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
PEDRO CRUZ
v.
PEDRO CRUZ
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 19, 2002.
806 A.2d 1067
Jon L. Schoenhom, in support of the petition., Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 71 Conn. App. 190 (AC 20786), is denied.