 |
|
 |
|
|
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. D'Haity, AC 25306,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 30, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim clothed in sufficiency of evidence language, that was challenge to credibility of victim's testimony, failed as appellate court could not address credibility questions and jury was free to credit testimony. Prosecutor's comments in closing arguments did not amount to misconduct, as, inter alia, burden of proof properly remained on State.
|
|||||
| State v. Edwards, AC 26222,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 30, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's contention that the absence of a ruling on his motion in limine gave rise to the presumption that the motion had been denied had to be rejected; he did not cite any authority, his trial counsel had to obtain ruling on the motion, and the lack of a ruling meant plain error did not exist under Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. App. P. § 60-5.
|
|||||
| State v. Howell, CR05222048,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statements defendant made to inmate prior to time inmate contacted detective regarding defendant's case were admissible because informant was not a government agent at that time; inmate's prior status as an informant in other unrelated cases did not transform the inmate into an informant in defendant's case until after detective was contacted.
|
|||||
| State v. Howell, CR05222048,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, January 30, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probable cause existed and was reasonable to search defendant's blue van, which was the last place a missing woman was seen entering before disappearing. It was not unreasonable for the search warrants in North Carolina and in Connecticut, where the van had been transported, to authorize the search of the van for items relating to the victim.
|
|||||
| State v. Lawrence, SC 17598,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 30, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court properly affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, because defendant's claims fell outside the set of narrow circumstances in which the trial court retained jurisdiction pursuant to Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 43-22.
|
|||||
| Sullins v. Rodriguez, SC 17642,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, January 30, 2007, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a former inmate sued a former warden and correction officer for damages, under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, (1) state sovereign immunity law did not govern because the vindication of a federal right was sought; and (2) the facts alleged were sufficient to defeat sovereign immunity because the warden and officer were sued in their individual capacities.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
