State of Connecticut v. Smith, 969 A.2d 176 (Conn. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
State of Connecticut v. Smith, 969 A.2d 176 (Conn. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
58 citation events (58 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Williams (connappct, 2013-09-24)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "see" State v. Williams (4×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Rosario, 113 Conn. App. 79, 93 , 966 A.2d 249 , cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 176 (2009).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Farah (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
A threshold showing is required notwithstanding a criminal defendant’s due process rights; see State v. Leduc, supra, 40 Conn. App. 244 -50; and confrontation rights; see State v. McClelland, 113 Conn. App. 142,159 , 965 A.2d 586 , cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 176 (2009).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Lebrick (2×)
Conn. · 2020 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Although High- tower’s efforts to locate Parks might have been suffi- cient to demonstrate her unavailability if her testimony had been peripheral in its importance or if the crimes charged had not been grave; see, e.g., State v. Smith, 112 Conn. App. 592 , 603–604, 963 A.2d 104 (state’s efforts to find witness by visiting her home and calling her cell phone multiple times were sufficient to establish her unavailability when witness, who neither was present at time of shooting nor had any firsthand knowledge about it, testified only about victim’s demeanor prior to shooting), cert. den…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Reeves (2×)
Conn. App. Ct. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
The object is to prevent a party from knowingly withholding his objection, until he discovers the effect of the testimony, and then if it turns out to be unfavorable to interpose his objection.’ ” Hackenson v. Waterbury, 124 Conn. 679, 683 , 2 A.2d 215 (1938); see also State v. McClelland, 113 Conn. App. 142, 156 , 965 A.2d 586 (“[i]n general, objections to the answer to a question should be made before the next question”), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 912 , 969 A.2d 176 (2009). *705 Therefore, to evaluate the defendant’s claim, we first need to assess whether the question asked of Gillet…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Connecticut
v.
Michael G. Smith
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Apr 21, 2009.
969 A.2d 176
Jeffrey C. Kestenband, in support of the petition., Denise B. Smoker, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Norcott.
Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 112 Conn. App. 592 (AC 28280), is denied.

NORCOTT, J.,

did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.