petitioner withdrew claim (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

petitioner withdrew claim in Connecticut

6 Connecticut opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Washington v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017See State v. Whelan , 200 Conn. 743 , 753, 513 A.2d 86 (allowing the substantive use of prior written inconsistent statements, signed by declarant, who has personal knowledge of facts stated, when declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994 , 107 S.Ct. 597 , 93 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986) ; see also Conn. Code Evid. § 8-5(1).

11
Bowen v. Peoplesgreen
scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017See State v. Whelan , 200 Conn. 743 , 753, 513 A.2d 86 (allowing the substantive use of prior written inconsistent statements, signed by declarant, who has personal knowledge of facts stated, when declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994 , 107 S.Ct. 597 , 93 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986) ; see also Conn. Code Evid. § 8-5(1).

11
California v. Tyberggreen
scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017See State v. Whelan , 200 Conn. 743 , 753, 513 A.2d 86 (allowing the substantive use of prior written inconsistent statements, signed by declarant, who has personal knowledge of facts stated, when declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994 , 107 S.Ct. 597 , 93 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986) ; see also Conn. Code Evid. § 8-5(1).

11
State v. Whelangreen
conn · 1986 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017See State v. Whelan , 200 Conn. 743 , 753, 513 A.2d 86 (allowing the substantive use of prior written inconsistent statements, signed by declarant, who has personal knowledge of facts stated, when declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994 , 107 S.Ct. 597 , 93 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986) ; see also Conn. Code Evid. § 8-5(1).

2017See State v. Whelan , 200 Conn. 743 , 753, 513 A.2d 86 (allowing the substantive use of prior written inconsistent statements, signed by declarant, who has personal knowledge of facts stated, when declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994 , 107 S.Ct. 597 , 93 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986) ; see also Conn. Code Evid. § 8-5(1).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Booth green
conn · 1999
2 sentences

2018State v. Booth , supra, 250 Conn. at 613 , 737 A.2d 404 . 3 The first count of the petition also alleged that Donovan was deficient in failing "to adequately advise the petitioner concerning his right [to] sentence review and failed to adequately pursue the same ...." The petitioner withdrew that claim at his habeas trial. 4 The petitioner also introduced into evidence transcripts of various proceedings and informations involving the petitioner, Smith, and Valentin.

2018State v. Booth , supra, 250 Conn. at 613 , 737 A.2d 404 . 3 The first count of the petition also alleged that Donovan was deficient in failing "to adequately advise the petitioner concerning his right [to] sentence review and failed to adequately pursue the same ...." The petitioner withdrew that claim at his habeas trial. 4 The petitioner also introduced into evidence transcripts of various proceedings and informations involving the petitioner, Smith, and Valentin.

12018–2018
Edwards v. Commissioner of Correction green
connappct · 2005
2 sentences

2013Edwards v. Commissioner of Correction, 87 Conn. App., 517 , 518 n.1, 865 A.2d 1231 (2005).

2013Edwards v. Commissioner of Correction, 87 Conn. App., 517 , 518 n.1, 865 A.2d 1231 (2005).

12013–2013
State v. Riggsbee green
connappct · 2009
2 sentences

2011At the habeas trial, however, the petitioner withdrew this claim. 2 “[U]nder our Penal Code . . . the state has a burden of persuasion regarding a self-defense claim: it must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Riggsbee, 112 Conn. App. 787, 794 , 963 A.2d 1122 (2009). 3 We note that the petitioner’s trial counsel devoted almost all of his closing argument to the proposition that the petitioner was not the shooter.

2011At the habeas trial, however, the petitioner withdrew this claim. 2 “[U]nder our Penal Code . . . the state has a burden of persuasion regarding a self-defense claim: it must disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Riggsbee, 112 Conn. App. 787, 794 , 963 A.2d 1122 (2009). 3 We note that the petitioner’s trial counsel devoted almost all of his closing argument to the proposition that the petitioner was not the shooter.

12011–2011
Baker v. Commissioner of Correction green
conn · 2007
2 sentences

2007After our Supreme Court decided Baker v. Commissioner of Correction, 281 Conn. 241 , 914 A.2d 1034 (2007), the petitioner withdrew this claim in his reply brief. 2 The petitioner was convicted in absentia of burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-101 (a) (2) and 53a-8, conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-101 (a) (2), two counts of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92 (a) (2) (A) (B) and (C), conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the first degree in violation of Ge

2007After our Supreme Court decided Baker v. Commissioner of Correction, 281 Conn. 241 , 914 A.2d 1034 (2007), the petitioner withdrew this claim in his reply brief. 2 The petitioner was convicted in absentia of burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-101 (a) (2) and 53a-8, conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-101 (a) (2), two counts of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92 (a) (2) (A) (B) and (C), conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the first degree in violation of Ge

12007–2007
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2006The judgment is affirmed. 1 The petitioner withdrew the claim that he was denied the right to represent himself before the habeas court rendered its decision. 2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2062 , 80 L.

2006The judgment is affirmed. 1 The petitioner withdrew the claim that he was denied the right to represent himself before the habeas court rendered its decision. 2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2062 , 80 L.

12006–2006

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check