green
Positive treatment
11.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Marcello E.
See State v. Epps, 105 Conn. App. 84, 94 , 936 A.2d 701 (2007) (upholding admission of evidence of prior misconduct, as relevant to intent, involving defendant’s punching and hitting victim where charged incident involved defendant’s pouring gasoline on vic- tim and igniting it, resulting in extensive burns), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 903 , 943 A.2d 1102 (2008); State v. Erhardt, supra, 858–60 (upholding admission of evi- dence of prior misconduct, as relevant to intent, involv- ing defendant’s head-butting victim where charged inci- dent involved defendant’s cutting of victim’s face…
cited
Cited "see"
Epps v. Comm'r of Corr.
See generally State v. Epps , 105 Conn. App. 84 , 86-87, 89, 936 A.2d 701 (2007), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 903 , 943 A.2d 1102 (2008).
cited
Cited "see"
Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction
See Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction , 105 Conn.App. 430 , 433-34, 939 A.2d 1185 , cert. denied, 286 Conn. 903 , 943 A.2d 1101 (2008) ( Kaddah I ).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Osbourne
See State v. Epps, 105 Conn. App. 84, 96 , 936 A.2d 701 (2007), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 903 , 943 A.2d 1102 (2008) In sum, on the basis of our review of the record, the defendant has failed to establish that the trial court decided to admit the subject photographs so arbitrarily as to vitiate logic, or decided to admit the photographs based on improper or irrelevant factors; see State v. Jacobson, 283 Conn. 618, 627 , 930 A.2d 628 (2007); and, thus, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in admitting the subject photographs.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ramirez
See State v. Epps, 105 Conn. App. 84 , 86 n.2, 936 A.2d 701 (2007), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 903 , 943 A.2d 1102 (2008).” State v. Ramirez, supra, 107 Conn. App. 54 n.1 . 3 General Statutes § 53-206 (a) provides in relevant part: “Any person who carries upon his or her person any . . . dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years or both. . . .”
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. ROSS V.
See State v. Epps, 105 Conn. App. 84, 98 , 936 A.2d 701 (2007), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 903 , 943 A.2d 1102 (2008). 3 The waiver precludes us from reviewing the defendant’s claim, as requested, under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), because “unpreserved, waived claims, fail under the third prong of Golding . . . .” State v. Fabricatore, 281 Conn. 469, 482 , 915 A.2d 872 (2007). 4 In his brief, the defendant also claims that the court failed to consider certain representations made by the prosecutor at the time the court was considering the defendant’s motion for a…
cited
Cited "see"
Faraday v. Commissioner of Correction
See Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction, 105 Conn. App. 430, 434-35 , 939 A.2d 1185 , cert. denied, 286 Conn. 903 , 943 A.2d 1101 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ramirez
See State v. Epps, 105 Conn. App. 84 , 86 n.2, 936 A.2d 701 (2007), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 903 , 943 A.2d 1102 (2008). 2 The defendant was subsequently charged with failure to appear in the first degree In violation of General Statutes § 53a-172 when he did not appear in court on June 1, 2004. 3 General Statutes § 53-206 provides in relevant part: “(a) Any person who carries upon his or her person any BB. gun, blackjack, metal or brass knuckles, or any dirk knife, or any switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which a blade is released from the handle, havi…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Longo
See State v. Epps, 105 Conn. App. 84, 98 , 936 A.2d 701 (2007), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 903 , 943 A.2d 1102 (2008). 9 Further, we do not engage in a level of review, such as Golding or plain error, when it has not been requested by a party.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction
See also State v. Epps, 105 Conn. App. 84, 98 , 936 A.2d 701 (2007) (“three evidentiary claims aggregated do not rise to the level of a deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional rights”), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 903 , 943 A.2d 1102 (2008); Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 104 Conn. App. 557, 567 , 935 A.2d 162 (2007) (court refused to accept petitioner’s cumulative effect argument), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 911 , 943 A.2d 470 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Pereira
See State v. Irizarry, supra, 95 Conn. App. 238 (court did not abuse discretion in concluding probative value outweighs prejudicial effect when misconduct evidence no more shocking than evidence of crimes with which defendant charged); see also State v. Epps, 105 Conn. App. 84, 93-94 , 936 A.2d 701 (2007) (court did not abuse discretion in admitting prior uncharged misconduct when uncharged misconduct not as brutal as conduct for which defendant charged), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 903 , 943 A.2d 1102 (2008).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Kevin EPPS.
v.
Kevin EPPS.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Feb 26, 2008.
Published
Darcy McGraw, special public defender, in support of the petition.
Toni M. Smith-Rosario, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 105 Conn.App. 84, 936 A.2d 701 (2007), is denied.