State v. Alexander, 719 A.2d 1169 (Conn. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Alexander, 719 A.2d 1169 (Conn. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Morales (connappct, 2003-07-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. Morales
Conn. App. Ct. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Otto, 50 Conn. App. 1, 9 , 717 A.2d 775 (investigating officers who had settled tort claims on basis of defendant’s vehicular assault of them had no personal interest in outcome of related criminal trial), cert. denied, 247 Conn. 927 , 719 A.2d 1171 (1998); see also United States v. Martinez-Gaytan, supra, 213 F.3d 892 (“we presume no motive to mislead or distort”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Chasse
Conn. App. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See United States v. Modica, supra, 1181 ; State v. Couture, supra, 564 ; see also State v. Glenn, 194 Conn. 483, 492 , 481 A.2d 741 (1984).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alexander, 50 Conn. App. 242, 255-56 , 718 A.2d 66 (1998), cert. granted on other grounds, 247 Conn. 927 , 719 A.2d 1169 (1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
ANDREW ALEXANDER
SC 16031.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Oct 22, 1998.
719 A.2d 1169
James M. Ralls, assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition., Monte P. Radler, assistant public defender, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The petition of the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 50 Conn. App. 242 (AC 15584), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Whether, under the circumstances of this case, the state violated the defendant’s constitutional right to be present at trial?

“2. Whether the state’s remarks to the jury amounted to prosecutorial misconduct?”

CALLAHAN, C. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.