green
Positive treatment
7.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Alvarez
But see State v. Johnson, 76 Conn. App. 410, 419 , 819 A.2d 871 (victims were sufficiently similar even though three were adult women and one was teen), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1156 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sinclair
(2×)
See State v. Young , 76 Conn.App. 392 , 404, 819 A.2d 884 (prosecutor's comment that defense counsel's argument was " 'always a favorite argument' " of defense attorneys improper), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1157 (2003) ; State v. Brown , 71 Conn.App. 121 , 129, 800 A.2d 674 (prosecutor's comment that defense counsel's argument was " 'smoke screen' " that all defense attorneys employ as usual defense tactic improper), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 940 , 808 A.2d 1133 (2002).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Ampero
See State v. Young, 76 Conn. App. 392, 406 , 819 A.2d 884 (impact of prosecutorial impropriety lessened when trial court instructed jury that statements and arguments of counsel were not evidence), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1157 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mucha
See State v. Young, 76 Conn. App. 392, 406 , 819 A.2d 884 (impact of prosecutorial impropriety lessened when trial court instructed jury that statements and arguments of counsel were not evidence), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1157 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. DeJesus
See State v. Johnson, 76 Conn. App. 410, 418 , 819 A.2d 871 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1156 (2003).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Antonio A.
See State v. Young, 76 Conn. App. 392, 404 , 819 A.2d 884 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1157 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Peters
See State v. Young, 76 Conn. App. 392, 398 , 819 A.2d 884 (“[i]n the absence of a motion for articulation, we will not assume that the court failed to apply the proper legal standard simply because it failed to articulate its reasoning”), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1157 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. John M.
See State v. Young, 76 Conn. App. 392, 404 , 819 A.2d 884 (finding improper prosecutor’s statement that defense counsel’s argument regarding in-court identification “always a favorite argument”), cert, denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1157 (2003); State v. Brown, 71 Conn. App. 121, 128-29 , 800 A.2d 674 (finding improper prosecutor’s statement that particular argument by defense counsel was smoke screen), cert, denied, 261 Conn. 940 , 808 A.2d 1133 (2002).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Ellis
See State v. Johnson, 76 Conn. App. 410 , 819 A.2d 871 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1156 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Burgos
State v. Duteau , 68 Conn.App. 248 , 254, 791 A.2d 591 (record inadequate for review of fourth amendment suppression claim where trial court did not issue memorandum of decision, sign the transcript, or make specific factual findings concerning issues on appeal), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 939 , 835 A.2d 58 (2002) ; State v. Rios , 30 Conn.App. 712 , 715-16, 622 A.2d 618 (1993) (same); see State v. Beliveau , supra, 52 Conn.App. at 481 -82 , 727 A.2d 737 (fifth amendment claim); see also State v. Young , 76 Conn.App. 392 , 409, 819 A.2d 884 (record inadequate to review of motion to suppress in-co…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Luster
Such comments invite the jury “to conclude that everyone the [g]ovemment accuses is guilty, that justice is done only when a conviction is obtained, and that defense counsel are impairing this version of justice by having the temerity to provide a defense and to try to ‘get’ the *434 guilty ‘off.’ ” Id.; see also State v. Young, 76 Conn. App. 392, 404 , 819 A.2d 884 (prosecutor expected to refrain from impugning defense counsel, either directly or by implication), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1157 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jackson
See State v. Hodge, supra, 248 Conn. 228 (“[b]ecause a disparate treatment claim raises factual questions that must be decided by the trial court, the defendant’s failure to raise the claim in the trial court is fatal to his claim on appeal”); see also State v. Young, 76 Conn. App. 392, 399 , 819 A.2d 884 , cert. denied, 264 Conn. 912 , 826 A.2d 1157 (2003).
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
WILLIE YOUNG
v.
WILLIE YOUNG
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jun 17, 2003.
Mary Anne Royle, special public defender, in support of the petition., Marjorie Allen Dauster, senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.
Published
No opinion found.Click here to view source material.