State v. Wargo, 738 A.2d 662 (Conn. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Wargo, 738 A.2d 662 (Conn. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Towbin v. Board of Examiners of Psychologists (connappct, 2002-07-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Towbin v. Board of Examiners of Psychologists
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Vasquez, 53 Conn. App. 661, 665 , 733 A.2d 856 (“[i]n considering the evidence introduced in a case, [j]uries are not required to leave common sense at the courtroom door . . . nor are they expected to lay aside matters of common knowledge or their own observations and experience of the affairs of life, but, on the contrary, to apply them to the facts in hand, to the end that their action may be intelligent and their conclusions correct”), cert. denied, 250 Conn. 922 , 738 A.2d 662 (1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
LANCE WARGO
SC 16186.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Sep 9, 1999.
738 A.2d 662
Moira L. Buckley, in support of the petition., Mitchell S. Brody, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 53 Conn. App. 747 (AC 18126), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that the admission of the medical examiner’s testimony regarding possible causes of death that leave markings only on the skin was harmless error?

“2. Whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that the hearsay testimony of three witnesses regarding statements made to them by the defendant’s children was properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule?

“3. Whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that witness testimony regarding the decedent’s fearful[*923] state of mind regarding the defendant was relevant to prove his motive to murder her and was more probative of his motive than it was prejudicial to the defendant?”

Decided September 9, 1999 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16186. Moira L. Buckley, in support of the petition. Mitchell S. Brody, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.