green
Positive treatment
4.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sanchez
See State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363 , 374-75, 838 A.2d 186 (jury could have discredited defendant's assertion that he feared victim would shoot him where victim never displayed or brandished weapon and no weapon recovered *683 at scene), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S.Ct. 2113 , 158 L.Ed.2d 722 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Andrews
The primary consideration in determining whether a trial court’s ruling violated a defendant’s right to present a defense is the centrality of the excluded evidence to the claim or claims raised by the defendant at trial.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sandoval, 263 Conn. 524, 546 , 821 A.2d 247 (2003); accord State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363, 385 , 838 A.2d 186 , cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S. Ct. 2113 , 158 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Saunders
See State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363, 366 , 838 A.2d 186 , cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S. Ct. 2113 , 158 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Saucier
See State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363, 383 , 838 A.2d 186 , cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S. Ct. 2113 , 158 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Fay
See, e.g., State v. Saunders , 267 Conn. 363 , 385, 838 A.2d 186 ("[t]he primary consideration in determining whether a trial court's ruling violated a defendant's right to present a defense is the centrality of the excluded evidence to the claim or claims raised by the defendant at trial" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S.Ct. 2113 , 158 L.Ed. 2d 722 (2004) ; State v. Peeler , 265 Conn. 460 , 474, 828 A.2d 1216 (2003) ("When either side in a criminal case seeks to call as a witness either a prosecutor or a defense attorney who is or has been professional…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. O'Bryan
As the state accurately notes, the well established usage of these terms in our case law is consistent with the requirement that the ‘‘defendant in fact . . . believed that the use of deadly force was necessary,’’ before determining ‘‘whether that belief was reasonable, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the defendant’s circumstances.’’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Clark, supra, 264 Conn. 732 ; see also, e.g., State v. Saun- ders, 267 Conn. 363 , 373–74, 838 A.2d 186 , cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S. Ct. 2113 , 158 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ebron
This statutory emphasis upon the defendant further demonstrates the function of the jury in their evaluation of the self-defense *687 claim. . . . [Section] 53a-19 (b) requires recourse to retreat in lieu of the use of physical force only when the actor himself knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety . . . .” (Citations omitted; emphasis altered; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ash, supra, 231 Conn. 492 ; see also, e.g., State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363, 374 , 838 A.2d 186 (“a defendant who raises a claim of self-defense is required to ret…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Coleman
v.
United States
v.
United States
03-9677.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 3, 2004.
Published
COLEMAN
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 03-9677.
Supreme Court of United States.
May 3, 2004.
1
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 84 Fed. Appx. 428.