green
Positive treatment
8.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Evans
See State v. McGee , 175 Conn. App. 566 , 586, 168 A.3d 495 ( Bishop, J. , dissenting) ("confusion abounds on the question of the jurisdiction of the trial court to hear a motion to correct an illegal sentence"), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 970 , 173 A.3d 953 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Nichols
The rationale behind this rule is sound: [T]he trial court is uniquely situated to entertain a motion to set aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence because, unlike an appellate court, the trial [court] has had the same opportunity as the jury to view the witnesses, to assess their credibility and to determine the weight that should be given to their evidence. . . . [T]he trial judge can gauge the tenor of the trial, as [an appellate court], on the written record, cannot, and can detect those factors, if any, that could improperly have influenced the jury.’’ (Emphasis omit- t…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Henry B.-A.
State v. Dawes, 122 Conn. App. 303, 314 , 999 A.2d 794 , cert. denied, 298 Conn. 912 , 4 A.3d 834 (2010); see also State v. Orellana, [ 89 Conn. App. 71, 105 , 872 A.2d 506 ] (isolated misstatement not prosecutorial impropriety) [cert. denied, 274 Conn. 910 , 876 A.2d 1202 (2005)]. . . . [W]e do not scrutinize each individual comment in a vacuum, but rather we must review the comments complained of in the context of the entire trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Chankar, 173 Conn. App. 227, 255 , 162 A.3d 756 , cert. denied, 326 Conn. 914 , 173 A.3d 390 (2017). ‘‘This…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Williams
Only the trial judge was in a position to evaluate [the witness’] testimony, along with the other relevant evidence, to make such a determination.’’ (Citations omitted.)); see also State v. Soto, 175 Conn. App. 739, 751 , 168 A.3d 605 (‘‘[u]nder Griffin, moving for a judgment of acquittal . . . does not preserve a weight [of the evidence] claim’’), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 970 , 173 A.3d 953 (2017). 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 5 0 Conn. 1 ,0 7 State v. Williams favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Williams
Only the trial judge was in a position to evaluate [the witness’] testimony, along with the other relevant evidence, to make such a determination.’’ (Citations omitted.)); see also State v. Soto, 175 Conn. App. 739, 751 , 168 A.3d 605 (‘‘[u]nder Griffin, moving for a judgment of acquittal . . . does not preserve a weight [of the evidence] claim’’), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 970 , 173 A.3d 953 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Artiaco
(2×)
Put differently, [impropriety] is [impropriety], regardless of its ultimate effect on the fairness of the trial; whether that [impropriety] caused or contributed to a due process violation is a separate and distinct question .... [W]hen a defendant raises on appeal a claim that improper remarks by the prosecutor deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial, the burden is on the defendant to show ... that the remarks were improper ...." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Thomas , 177 Conn. App. 369 , 405, 173 A.3d 430 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 9…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Antoine WALTON
v.
Antoine WALTON
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Nov 21, 2017.
Published
Matthew C. Eagan, assigned counsel, and Michael S. Taylor, assigned counsel, in support of the petition.
The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 175 Conn. App. 642, 168 A.3d 652 (2017), is denied.
[*391] ROBINSON, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.