green
Positive treatment
9.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Buhl
(2×)
See State v. Howard F., 86 Conn.App. 702 , 708, 862 A.2d 331 (2004) ("[c]laims of error by an appellant must be raised in his original brief ... so that the issue as framed by him can be fully responded to by the appellee in its brief" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1032 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction
The Appellate Court affirmed the judg- ment of conviction on direct appeal; see State v. Ander- son, 86 Conn. App. 854, 856 , 864 A.2d 35 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1031 (2005); and, on April 30, 2009, the petitioner filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Victor C.
Moreover, the state need not present physical evidence in order to secure a conviction; see State v. Pedro S., 87 Conn. App. 183, 201 , 865 A.2d 1177 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1033 (2005); the jury may find a defendant guilty based solely on the testimony of one witness.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. James
Absent clear evidence to contrary, we presume that the jury followed the court’s limiting instructions; see State v. Anderson, 86 Conn. App. 854, 870 , 864 A.2d 35 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1031 (2005); and we cannot conclude that the prosecutor’s remarks were intended to induce the jury to do otherwise.
discussed
Cited "see"
Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction
(2×)
See State v. Anderson, 86 Conn. App. 854, 871-73 , 864 A.2d 35 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1031 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Nance
See State v. Anderson, 86 Conn. App. 854, 870 , 864 A.2d 35 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1031 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Anderson
Following the affirmance of his conviction on direct appeal; see State v. Anderson, 86 Conn. App. 854 , 864 A.2d 35 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1031 (2005); the defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming that his sentence on the risk of injury charge exceeded the statutory maximum sentence.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Virgo
See State v. Anderson, 86 Conn. App. 854, 870 , 864 A.2d 35 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1031 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Davis
See State v. Anderson, 86 Conn. App. 854, 870 , 864 A.2d 35 (jury presumed to follow court’s instructions absent clear evidence to contrary), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1031 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Farr
See State v. Pedro S., 87 Conn. App. 183, 199 , 865 A.2d 1177 , cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1033 (2005).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Cummings
See State v. Anderson, 86 Conn. App. 854, 863-64 , 864 A.2d 35 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1031 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Dabate
See, e.g., State v. Pedro S., 87 Conn. App. 183, 198 , 865 A.2d 1177 (asking jury to ‘‘[w]eigh everything [it] heard and [to] use [its] common sense’’ and stating that it was ‘‘in the state’s best interest for [the jurors] to use that common sense’’ were arguments properly based on contradictions in defendant’s testimony, rather than on prosecutor’s opinion (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1033 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Gerald A.
See, e.g., State v. Pedro S. , 87 Conn. App. 183 , 201, 865 A.2d 1177 (concluding that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support defendant's conviction and noting that ''[t]he defendant's claim is based solely on the flawed premise that the state bore the burden of proving its case with physical evidence''), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1033 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jordan
Moreover, any prejudice was minimized by the court’s limiting instruction to the jury on the proper use of the misconduct evidence. 10 See State v. Lopez, 14 Conn. App. 536, 539 , 541 *652 A.2d 902 (1988) (“[s]uch a limiting instruction serves to minimize any possible prejudice”); see also State v. Anderson, 86 Conn. App. 854, 870 , 864 A.2d 35 (jury presumed to follow court’s instructions absent clear evidence to contrary), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1031 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Beaulieu
(2×)
Ed. 2d 175 (2002); see also State v. Howard F., 86 Conn. App. 702, 710-11 , 862 A.2d 331 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1032 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Myers
(2×)
See State v. James G., supra, 268 Conn. at 397-98 , 844 A.2d 810 ; see also State v. Anderson, 86 Conn.App. 854, 870 , 864 A.2d 35 (jury presumed to follow court's instructions absent clear evidence to contrary) cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1031 (2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Smith
See State v. James G., supra, 268 Conn. 397 -98; see also State v. Anderson, 86 Conn. App. 854, 870 , 864 A.2d 35 (jury presumed to follow court’s instructions absent clear evidence to contrary), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924 , 871 A.2d 1031 (2005).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
HOWARD F.
v.
HOWARD F.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Apr 12, 2005.
Published
David V. DeRosa, special public defender, in support of the petition.
Christine Collyer, special deputy assistant state's attorney, in opposition.
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 86 Conn.App. 702, 862 A.2d 331 (2005), is denied.