 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Blake, AC 27293,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 18, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly determined in camera examination of the victim's psychiatric records was not warranted, as defendant failed to show that any of the alleged mental health issues of the victim were contemporaneous with the date of the assault or the trial. DNA expert was sufficiently acquainted computer software to generate expert opinion.
|
|||||
| State v. Bosque, AC 27991,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 18, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for burglary, kidnapping, robbery, and similar crimes was upheld because the trial court's instruction regarding the presumption of innocence properly directed the jury to consider each count separately, to hold the State to its proper burden of proof as to each count, and to reach a separate decision as to each count.
|
|||||
| State v. Davis, SC 17829,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 18, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant's conduct in first of three cases, which alleged defendant shot victim multiple times at close range in empty parking lot, was significantly more brutal and shocking than conduct in other two cases, thorough, explicit, and proper jury instructions cured risk of prejudice to defendant and allowed jury to consider case separately.
|
|||||
| State v. Kelly, AC 26738,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 18, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of hearsay through victim's mother was not error, as it allowed mother to explain alteration of opinion only after defendant opened door. Defendant could not claim error in admission of victim's letter to mother where counsel agreed to admission of redacted letter. Prosecutor's erroneous comments did not deprive defendant of fair trial.
|
|||||
| State v. Kemler, AC 27344,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 18, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim trial court improperly failed to instruct jury regarding self-defense theory when it responded to the jury's request that it explain against what constituted the offenses charged was not preserved and failed under Golding because claim was not of constitutional magnitude. There were no errors in jury instructions when considered as whole.
|
|||||
| State v. Ragin, AC 27341,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 18, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of interfering with an officer and breach of the peace in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-167a and 53a-181 because he intended to interfere with officers' duty to disperse a crowd. His act of repeatedly approaching the officers caused them to fear physical violence and to take drastic measures to subdue him.
|
|||||
| Weiner v. Clinton, AC 28317,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 18, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clients' legal malpractice action, alleging claims for breach of contract and negligence, was time barred by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577, because the breach of contract claim was "only a legal malpractice claim cloaked in contract terms," and there was no intentional concealment of facts by the attorney which tolled limitations period in § 52-577.
|
|||||
| Zelvin v. Jem Builders, Inc., AC 26422,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, March 18, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was proper to deny sellers' application to vacate an arbitration award and to grant purchaser's application under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-417 to confirm the award because the submission to the arbitrators was unrestricted. The arbitration clause gave the arbitrators' authority to decide any claim arising from or relating to the parties' contract.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
