green
Positive treatment
7.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2017 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2017
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Maurice B.
See State v. Rivera, 169 Conn. App. 343, 353 , 150 A.3d 244 (2016) (reviewing challenged statement in context of entire trial and closing argument), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 905 , 152 A.3d 544 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see"
Crawley v. Commissioner of Correction
See Moye v. Commissioner of Correction, 168 Conn. App. 207 , 212 n.3, 145 A.3d 362 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 905 , 153 A.3d 653 (2017). 5 A copy of the motion to suppress and accompanying memorandum of law, dated December 4, 2002, was admitted into evidence at the habeas trial.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Stevenson v. Commissioner of Correction
See, e.g., Moye v. Commissioner of Correction, 168 Conn. App. 207, 227 , 145 A.3d 362 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 905 , 153 A.3d 653 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sumler
See State v. Gore, supra, 342 Conn 159–63; see also State v. Rivera, 169 Conn. App. 343, 371 , 150 A.3d 244 (2016) (‘‘[t]he trial court has wide discretion in its rulings on evidence and its rulings will be reversed only if the court has abused its discretion or an injustice appears to have been done’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 905 , 152 A.3d 544 (2017).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Jose R.
Ed. 2d 822 (1998); and discuss ‘‘the weight to be afforded the defendant’s [out-of-court] statements . . . .’’ State v. Correa, 241 Conn. 322, 360 , 696 A.2d 944 (1997); see also State v. Rivera, 169 Conn. App. 343 , 352–54, 150 A.3d 244 (2016) (prosecutor’s remarks urging jury to assess defendant’s credibility on basis of two out-of- court statements to police were not improper), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 905 , 152 A.3d 544 (2017); State v. Rupar, 86 Conn. App. 641 , 652–53, 862 A.2d 352 (2004) (prosecutor’s statement that, in sexual assault cases, ‘‘ ‘it’s often a v…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Watson
The court determines whether the evidence sought on cross-examination is relevant by determining whether that evidence renders the existence of [other facts] either certain or more probable.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Thomas, 177 Conn. App. 369 , 384–85, 173 A.3d 430 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 985 , 175 A.3d 43 (2017); see also State v. Rivera, 169 Conn. App. 343, 380 , 150 A.3d 244 (2016) (‘‘[a] defendant . . . may introduce only relevant evidence, and, if the proffered evidence is not relevant, its exclusion is proper and the defendant’s righ…
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Josue RIVERA
v.
Josue RIVERA
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 4, 2017.
Cited by 29 opinions | Published
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court,
EVELEIGH, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.