green
Positive treatment
8.2 score
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Daren Y.
The state con- tends that we should adopt the rule favored by the Appellate Court; see, e.g., State v. Pugh, 176 Conn. App. 518 , 534–35, 170 A.3d 710 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 985 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017); State v. Coughlin, 61 Conn. App. 90, 97 , 762 A.2d 1 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 934 , 767 A.2d 105 (2001); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn. App. 473 , 491–92, 642 A.2d 36 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 907 , 648 A.2d 157 (1994); which considers the statute of limitations to be an affirmative defense, and, like all other affirmative defenses, it is implicitly waived if not timely raised before th…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Daren Y.
The state con- tends that we should adopt the rule favored by the Appellate Court; see, e.g., State v. Pugh, 176 Conn. App. 518 , 534–35, 170 A.3d 710 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 985 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017); State v. Coughlin, 61 Conn. App. 90, 97 , 762 A.2d 1 (2000), cert. denied, 255 Conn. 934 , 767 A.2d 105 (2001); State v. Harrison, 34 Conn. App. 473 , 491–92, 642 A.2d 36 , cert. denied, 231 Conn. 907 , 648 A.2d 157 (1994); which considers the statute of limitations to be an affirmative defense, and, like all other affirmative defenses, it is implicitly waived if not timely raised before th…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Massaro
The question of whether the defendant has been prejudiced by prosecu- torial [impropriety] . . . depends on whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury’s verdict would have been different absent the sum total of the impropri- eties.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sinclair, 332 Conn. 204, 236-37 , 210 A.3d 509 (2019); see also State v. Thomas, 177 Conn. App. 369, 405 , 173 A.3d 430 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 985 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017). ‘‘[T]he touchstone of due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial [impropriety] is the fairness o…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. White
Rptr. 596 , 596) (relying on Wang and granting indigent defendant’s motion for funds for expert witness, despite public defender’s initial refusal to pay because defendant was represented by pro bono counsel and not public defender, and ordering that ‘‘the defendant . . . follow the protocol of the OCPD in applying for such funds and that the OCPD shall not unreasonably deny such funds’’); id., 597 (concluding that indigent defendant represented by pro bono coun- sel is constitutionally entitled to public funds for expert witness); see also State v. Thomas, 177 Conn. App. 369 , 402…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. White
Rptr. 596 , 596) (relying on Wang and granting indigent defendant’s motion for funds for expert witness, despite public defender’s initial refusal to pay because defendant was represented by pro bono counsel and not public defender, and ordering that ‘‘the defendant . . . follow the protocol of the OCPD in applying for such funds and that the OCPD shall not unreasonably deny such funds’’); id., 597 (concluding that indigent defendant represented by pro bono counsel is constitutionally entitled to public funds for expert witness); see also State v. Thomas, 177 Conn. App. 369 , 402�…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jackson
See part IV of this opinion; see also State v. Pugh , 176 Conn. App. 518 , 533, 170 A.3d 710 (concluding that "the state presented a strong case against the defendant, even if some of the evidence was circumstantial"), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 985 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017) ; State v. Hayward , 116 Conn. App. 511 , 520, 976 A.2d 791 (concluding that state's case was strong despite fact that evidence with respect to defendant's use of dangerous instrument was "in large part circumstantial"), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 934 , 981 A.2d 1077 (2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Vega
See State v. Campbell , 328 Conn. 444 , 512, A.3d (2018) ("[i]t is well established that a violation of the defendant's right to confront witnesses is subject to harmless error analysis" [internal quotation marks omitted] ); see also State v. Pugh , 176 Conn. App. 518 , 528, 170 A.3d 710 (conducting harmless error analysis to resolve confrontation clause claim), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 985 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Matthew PUGH
v.
Matthew PUGH
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 14, 2017.
Published
The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 176 Conn. App. 518, 170 A.3d 710 (2017), is denied.