State v. Billington, 798 A.2d 971 (Conn. 2002). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Billington, 798 A.2d 971 (Conn. 2002). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Santoro v. Santoro (connappct, 2011-11-08)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Santoro v. Santoro
Conn. App. Ct. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Salmond, 69 Conn. App. 81, 91 , 797 A.2d 1113 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 929 , 798 A.2d 973 (2002).
cited Cited "see" Tsitaridis v. Tsitaridis
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Salmond, 69 Conn. App. 81, 91 , 797 A.2d 1113 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 929 , 798 A.2d 973 (2002).
cited Cited "see" State v. Miloro, No. Fst 93649 (Dec. 17, 2002)
Conn. Super. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See, State v. Salmond , 69 Conn. App. 81 , 89 , 797 A.2d 1113 (2000), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 929 , 798 A.2d 973 (2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Walker v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
Nevertheless, the defendant ‘‘bears the burden of showing that he has suffered prejudice by establishing a factual record demonstrating that the members of the jury knew of the restraints.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; see also State v. Flowers, 69 Conn. App. 57, 63 , 797 A.2d 1122 (negative connotations of restraints are without significance unless their use comes to attention of jury), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 929 , 798 A.2d 972 (2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Streater v. Commissioner of Correction
Conn. App. Ct. · 2013 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Vazquez v. Commissioner of Correction, 128 Conn. App. 425, 429 , 17 A.3d 1089 , cert. denied, 301 Conn. 926 , 22 A.3d 1277 (2011) (petitioner must show both deficient performance and reasonable probability that result of proceeding would have been different to establish ineffective assistance of counsel). “[W]e can affirm a correct decision even though the reasoning underlying that decision is flawed.” State v. Salmond, 69 Conn. App. 81, 91 , 797 A.2d 1113 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 929 , 798 A.2d 973 (2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Collins
Conn. App. Ct. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence low
Furthermore, we must determine whether the court’s instructions “gave the jury a reasonably clear comprehension of the issues presented for [its] determination under the pleadings and upon the evidence and were suited to guide [it] in the determination of those issues.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 313; see also State v. Flowers, 69 Conn. App. 57, 71 , 797 A.2d 1122 (instructions not considered in vacuum, but in context of factual issues raised at trial), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 929 , 798 A.2d 972 (2002).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sorban v. Sterling Engineering Corp.
Conn. App. Ct. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
It is axiomatic that “[w]e may affirm a proper result of the trial court for a different reason.” Biro v. Hirsch, 62 Conn. App. 11 , 16 n.7, 771 A.2d 129 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 908 , 772 A.2d 601 (2001); see also State v. Salmond, 69 Conn. App. 81, 91 , 797 A.2d 1113 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 929 , 798 A.2d 973 (2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
WILLIAM BILLINGTON
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
May 29, 2002.
798 A.2d 971
David B. Rozwaski, special public defender, in support of the petition., Thomas M. DeLillo, special deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 69 Conn. App. 902 (AC 21194), is denied.