State v. Bronson, 747 A.2d 523 (Conn. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Bronson, 747 A.2d 523 (Conn. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Delgado (connappct, 2001-07-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" State v. Delgado
Conn. App. Ct. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Bronson, 55 Conn. App. 717, 723-24 , 740 A.2d 458 (1999), cert. granted on other grounds, 252 Conn. 944 , 747 A.2d 523 (2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
JOHN BRONSON, SR.
SC 16273.
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Mar 8, 2000.
747 A.2d 523
Susan M. Hankins, assistant public defender, in support of the petition., Toni M. Smith-Rosario, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 717 (AC 16833), is granted, limited to the following issues:

“1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for a continuance to prepare for the midtrial State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683, 529 A.2d 1245 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061, 108 S. Ct. 1017, 98 L. Ed. 2d 982 (1988), hearing?
“2. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for an examination of the victim by a court-appointed expert?
“3. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the denial by the trial court of the defendant’s motion for a mistrial?
“4. Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to redact portions of the pretrial videotape of the interview of the victim?
“5. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the record was inadequate to review the defendant’s claims that the trial court violated the defendant’s rights under Practice Book § 743, now § 40-13, or article first, § 8, of the state constitution, by precluding his six character witnesses? If the foregoing record was adequate, did the trial court violate any such rights of the defendant?”
[*945] The Supreme Court docket number is SC 16273. Susan M. Hankins, assistant public defender, in support of the petition. Toni M. Smith-Rosario, deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition. Decided March 8, 2000

KATZ and VERTEFEUILLE, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.