 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Anderson, (AC 21322),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 28, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of assault in the first degree was supported by sufficient evidence; the jury could have inferred that defendant had the conscious objective to cause serious and permanent disfigurement by biting the victim's face.
|
|||||
| State v. Arline, (AC 22283),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 28, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress during a trial for possession of narcotics with intent to sell; there was probable cause to arrest defendant, and the search which uncovered the evidence was incident to the arrest.
|
|||||
| State v. Bloomfield, (AC 22038),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 28, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant initially elected to be tried by a jury and thereafter changed his election to a court trial, at which point the court canvassed him as to his jury rights, he was not denied the right to a jury when he sought to change his election.
|
|||||
| State v. Boykin, (AC 21209),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 28, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Vague reference to defendant's arrest record, although improper, when coupled with immediate cautionary instruction, did not unfairly prejudice defendant. Surrebuttal testimony, which did not contradict rebuttal evidence, was properly disallowed.
|
|||||
| State v. Hoskie, (AC 22786),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 28, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly admitted prior conduct evidence in defendant's trial for kidnapping and unlawful restraint; defendant was not prejudiced, as the evidence involved relatively minor incidents in comparison to the instant charge.
|
|||||
| State v. Stagnitta, (AC 22460),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 28, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for burglary and larceny were supported by sufficient evidence that defendant entered restaurant when it was not open to public and that management office was a separate unit from those areas of the restaurant that were open to public.
|
|||||
| State v. Wiggins, (AC 22217),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 28, 2003, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant cross-racial identification instruction. Defendant was not limited on his cross-examination of the identifying witness nor on his arguing of the reliability of cross-racial identification.
|
|||||
| Utz v. Warden, CV970002388,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, January 28, 2003, Decided , January 28, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas petitioner's appellate counsel had not been ineffective in failing to raise an issue of prosecutorial misconduct, as the issue had not been preserved by objection, and petitioner had been unlikely to prevail on this issue; petition was denied.
|
|||||
| Yimoyines v. Classic Turf Co., X01CV0001613345S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET AT WATERBURY, January 28, 2003, Decided , January 28, 2003, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Letter from contractors which stated that they released engineers from liability for their work on a certain project did not release engineers from negligence liability, as no consideration was given for release and promissory estoppel did not apply.
|
|||||
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. |
