State v. Pereira, 815 A.2d 135 (Conn. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Pereira, 815 A.2d 135 (Conn. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
43 citation events (43 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Morquecho v. Commissioner of Correction (connappct, 2016-04-19)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Morquecho v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. Commissioner of Correction, 73 Conn.App. 600 , 602-603, 808 A.2d 1166 (2002) ("[b]ecause both prongs of the Strickland test must be established for a habeas petitioner to prevail, a court may dismiss a petitioner's claim if he fails to meet either prong"), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 133 (2003).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Kendall (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 545, 563-67 , 805 A.2d 787 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003).
discussed Cited "see" State v. MARTIN V.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 112-14 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003). 11 After Déla Cruz testified, the court instructed the jury: “This testimony that you have heard with respect to out-of-court statements by the two girls, [M] and [S], is admitted before you not to prove the truth of the contents of their statements, of their out-of-court statements, but to corroborate the fact that at a certain period of time, they made a complaint.
discussed Cited "see" Bowden v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. Commissioner of Correction, 73 Conn. App. 600, 603 , 808 A.2d 1166 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 133 (2003); see also Carey v. Commissioner of Correction, 86 Conn. App. 180 , 185 n.6, 860 A.2d 776 (2004), cert. denied, 272 Conn. 915 , 866 A.2d 1283 (2005). 7 Similarly, in Adorno v. Commissioner of Correction, 66 Conn. App. 179 , 188 n.3, 783 A.2d 1202 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 943 , 786 A.2d 428 (2001), we stated that “[t]he habeas court, however, did not discuss in detail those claims, some of which were not even mentioned in the petition for habeas corpus.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Jackson
Conn. App. Ct. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
Whether testimony was admitted properly under the constancy of accusation doctrine is an evidentiary question. “[E]videntiary rulings will be overturned on appeal only where there was an abuse of discretion and a showing by the defendant of substantial prejudice or injustice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alvarez, 216 Conn. 301, 306 , 579 A.2d 515 (1990); see State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 107, 117 , 806 A.2d 51 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003).
cited Cited "see" State v. Coleman
Conn. App. Ct. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 545, 563 , 805 A.2d 787 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Sullivan
Conn. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 308 Conn. 412 , 450, 454, 64 A.3d 91 (2013) (noting that one Williams factor was ‘‘ultimately dispositive of the issue of harmfulness’’); see also, e.g., State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 545, 563 , 805 A.2d 787 (2002) (recognizing that Williams ‘‘factors are nonex- haustive, and do not serve as an arithmetic test for the level of prejudice flowing from [the prosecutorial improprieties]’’), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Roy D. L.
Conn. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
See State v. Wilson, 308 Conn. 412 , 450, 64 A.3d 91 (2013) (noting that one Williams factor was ‘‘ultimately dispos- itive of the issue of harmfulness’’); see also State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 545, 563 , 805 A.2d 787 (2002) (recognizing that Williams factors ‘‘are nonexhaustive, and do not serve as an arithmetic test for the level of prejudice flowing from misconduct’’), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Harris v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., King v. Commissioner of Correction, 73 Conn. App. 600, 603 , 808 A.2d 1166 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 133 (2003). 4 In her return, the respondent did not raise the affirmative defense of procedural default. 5 General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) provides in relevant part: “A person is guilty of robbery in the first degree when, in the course of the commission of the crime of robbery as defined in section 53a-133 or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime ... (2) is armed with a deadly weapon . . .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dawson v. Commissioner of Correction (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2008 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., King v. Commissioner of Correction, 73 Conn. App. 600, 603 , 808 A.2d 1166 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 133 (2003).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Sinvil
Conn. App. Ct. · 2003 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 545, 564-67 , 805 A.2d 787 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 931 , 815 A.2d 135 (2003).
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
RICARDO PEREIRA
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 9, 2003.
815 A.2d 135
James B. Streeto, assistant public defender, in support of the petition., Mitchell S. Brody, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published

No opinion found.Click here to view source material.