State v. Martin, 832 A.2d 73 (Conn. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Martin, 832 A.2d 73 (Conn. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Jarmon (connappct, 2020-01-14)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Jarmon
Conn. App. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Martin, 77 Conn. App. 778, 800 , 825 A.2d 835 (‘‘[t]he defendant has failed to cite any authority, nor have we found any, for the proposition that a pretrial detainee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his telephone calls and mail after being informed that his calls and mail would be monitored’’ [emphasis in original]), cert. denied, 266 Conn. 906 , 832 A.2d 73 (2003).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Jarmon
Conn. App. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Martin, 77 Conn. App. 778, 800 , 825 A.2d 835 (‘‘[t]he defendant has failed to cite any authority, nor have we found any, for the proposition that a pretrial detainee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his telephone calls and mail after being informed that his calls and mail would be monitored’’ [emphasis in original]), cert. denied, 266 Conn. 906 , 832 A.2d 73 (2003).
discussed Cited "see" Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. (2×)
Conn. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, supra, 290 F. Sup. 2d 270 (“[t]he court . . . believes that a discussion of the issues in the case of Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 77 Conn. App. 690 , 825 A.2d 153 [certs, granted, 266 Conn. 906 , 907, 832 A.2d 71 , 72 (2003)] is merited because the case is central to the arguments of both parties in the present litigation”). 4 On June 6, 2006, the newspapers and the judicial branch settled the federal litigation and stipulated to its dismissal.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Davis
Conn. App. Ct. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Martin, 77 Conn. App. 778, 817 , 825 A.2d 835 (“whether to allow a recall of a witness for further cross-examination is within the discretion of the trial court”), cert. denied, 266 Conn. 906 , 832 A.2d 73 (2003).
cited Cited "see" Martin v. Flanagan
Conn. App. Ct. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Martin, 77 Conn. App. 778 , 825 A.2d 835 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 906 , 832 A.2d 73 (2003).
cited Cited "see" 716 Windsor Street Associates, LLC v. Catholic Charities/Catholic Family Services, Inc.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 77 Conn. App. 690, 720 , 825 A.2d 153 , cert. granted on other grounds, 266 Conn. 906 , 907, 832 A.2d 71 , 72 (2003).
cited Cited "see" East Haven Builders Supply, Inc. v. Fanton
Conn. App. Ct. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 77 Conn. App. 690, 720 , 825 A.2d 153 , cert. granted on other grounds, 266 Conn. 906 , 907, 832 A.2d 71 , 72 (2003).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sparkman v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2009 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Martin, 77 Conn.App. 778 , 825 A.2d 835, 849 (concluding that because department of corrections notified defendant that his mail would be read, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his letters), appeal denied, 266 Conn. 906 , 832 A.2d 73 (2003); State v. Wiley, 355 N.C. 592 , 565 S.E.2d 22, 32-33 (2002) (because defendant had notice that mail was subject to scrutiny, defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in mail), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1117 , 123 S.Ct. 882 , 154 L.Ed.2d 795 (2003); Merritt v. State, 982 S.W.2d 634, 635 (Tex.App.1998) (because inmate …
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Blango
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Martin, 77 Conn. App. 778, 804 , 825 A.2d 835 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 906 , 832 A.2d 73 (2003).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Glenn
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
In State v. Figueroa, 257 Conn. 192 , 777 A.2d 587 (2001), our Supreme Court made clear that “[t]he fact that the evidence might support an innocent explanation as well as an inference of a consciousness of guilt does not make an instruction on [consciousness of guilt] erroneous. . . . [T]he court [is] not required to enumerate all the possible innocent explanations offered by the defendant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 197 ; see also State v. Martin, 77 Conn. App. 778, 804-805 , 825 A.2d 835 (court rejected defendant’s argument that court’s consciousness of guilt instruct…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
CARLTON MARTIN
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 18, 2003.
832 A.2d 73
James B. Streeto, assistant public defender, in support of the petition., Mitchell S. Brody, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 77 Conn. App. 778 (AC 22976), is denied.