green
Positive treatment
7.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Kirwan v. Kirwan
See Nashid v. Andrawis , 83 Conn. App. 115 , 121-22, 847 A.2d 1098 (plain error to permit future disputes regarding custody and visitation to be decided in arbitration), cert. denied, 270 Conn. 912 , 853 A.2d 528 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mullien
See State v. Grant, 83 Conn. App. 90, 98 , 848 A.2d 549 (“[w]e conclude that by virtue of the change from the anticipated testimony of the victim, which occurred at trial, the state showed good cause sufficient to meet the first prong of Practice Book § 36-18”), cert. denied, 270 Conn. 913 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. CARACOGLIA
See State v. Bryant, 17 Conn. App. 525, 527 , 554 A.2d 1105 (1989). “[T]he trial court’s decision regarding ... a Brady violation will be overturned only upon a finding of clear abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sells, 82 Conn. App. 332, 351 , 844 A.2d 235 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 911 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Kemah
See State v. Sells, 82 Conn. App. 332, 347 , 844 A.2d 235 (concluding that prosecutor improperly turned over to court, instead of directly to defendant, confidential records including exculpatory evidence to satisfy Brady obligations, and that procedure for in camera review of privileged records “does not apply when the complainant has waived his rights to confidentiality in the records and the records have been directly turned over to the prosecutor’s office”), cert. denied, 270 Conn. 911 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004). 7 The terms “confidential” and “privilege” can have different meanin…
cited
Cited "see"
EARL G. v. Commissioner of Correction
See State v. [G.], 83 Conn. App. 90 , 848 A.2d 549 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 913 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Bryant
See State v. Sells, 82 Conn. App. 332, 338 , 844 A. 2d 235 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 911 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ortiz
See State v. Sells, 82 Conn. App. 332, 351 , 844 A.2d 235 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 911 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004); State v. Sitkiewicz, 64 Conn. App. 108, 114 , 779 A.2d 782 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 909 , 782 A.2d 1250 (2001); State v. St.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Victor C.
Id.; see also State v. Grant, 83 Conn. App. 90, 93-95, 98 , 848 A.2d 549 (good cause shown when information amended to expand time frame to conform to victim’s testimony that changed from identifying specific date to providing date range when incidents occurred), cert. denied, 270 Conn. 913 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004); State v. Wilson F., supra, 77 Conn. App. 413 (good cause shown when amended date in information would more closely conform to anticipated testimony, testifying victim was young when incident occurred and incident occurred years prior).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jordan
See, e.g., State v. Grant, 83 Conn. App. 90, 93-95, 98 , 848 A.2d 549 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 913 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004); State v. Wilson F., supra, 77 Conn. App. 413 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Kendall
(2×)
State v. Perez, 78 Conn. App. 610, 628 , 828 A.2d 626 (2003), cert. denied, 271 Conn. 901 , 859 A.2d 565 (2004); see also State v. Sells, 82 Conn. App. 332, 341 , 844 A.2d 235 (“[i]n a case that essentially reduces to which of two conflicting stories is true, it may be reasonable to infer, and hence to argue that one of the two sides is lying” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 270 Conn. 911 , 853 A.2d 529 (2004). 3 The defendant also claims that the prosecutor denigrated the defense case by characterizing it, during rebuttal closing argument, as “ludicrous” and “incr…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. TRD
"Neither the United States Supreme Court nor [this court] has held that the magnitude of the penalty determines the constitutionality of strict liability statutes." State v. Nanowski, 56 Conn.App. 649, 656-57 , 746 A.2d 177 (rejecting defendant's argument that General Statutes § 31-71a et seq. regarding payment of wages was unconstitutional as strict liability offense where amendments to statute increased penalty for conviction from misdemeanor to felony), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 952 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000); see State v. Kirk R., 271 Conn. 499 , 515 n. 20, 857 A.2d 908 (2004) (noting that crim…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. T.R.D.
“Neither the United States Supreme Court nor [this court] has held that the magnitude of the penalty determines the constitutionality of strict liability statutes.” State v. Nanowski, 56 Conn. App. 649, 656-57 , 746 A.2d 177 (rejecting defendant’s argument that General Statutes § 31-71a et seq. regarding payment of wages was unconstitutional as strict liability offense where amendments to statute increased penalty for conviction from misdemeanor to felony), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 952 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000); see State v. Kirk R., 271 Conn. 499 , 515 n.20, 857 A.2d 908 (2004) (noting tha…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Paul FRANCIS.
v.
Paul FRANCIS.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jul 13, 2004.
Published
Michael O. Sheehan, New Haven and George G. Kouros, in support of the petition.
John A. East III, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 83 Conn.App. 226, 849 A.2d 873 (2004), is denied.