 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Rhode v. Milla, SC 17860,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 15, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In personal injury suit, trial court properly precluded defendants from introducing at trial fact that plaintiff's chiropractor invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege during a deposition, as it did not abuse its discretion in determining that probative value of this evidence was outweighed by the prejudice to plaintiff under Conn. Code Evid. R. 4-3.
|
|||||
| State v. Arthur S., AC 28391,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 15, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in admitting portions of a witness's written statement that were consistent with her trial testimony because the consistent portions were necessary to place the inconsistent statements in the context of the time line of the case and the crimes charged. The trial court's analysis reflected the exercise of sound discretion.
|
|||||
| State v. David M., AC 28051,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 15, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for sexual assault and risk of injury to a child were upheld, as failure to conduct evidentiary hearing on motion to withdraw guilty plea which was not in record was not abuse of discretion, bare assertions counsel threatened defendant did not entitle defendant to new counsel, and second motion for continuance was properly denied.
|
|||||
| State v. DelValle, AC 27719,
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 15, 2008, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the record amply supported the finding that the hole in defendant's thick down coat might have been used to conceal a weapon, the officer was justified in conducting a patdown search of defendant. Thus, there was no violation of Conn. Const. art. I, § 7, 9, and the motion to suppress was properly denied.
|
|||||
| State v. Kinion, CR070360554,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY AT WATERBURY, July 15, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not have jurisdiction to address whether proper notice was provided to defendant with respect to lesser included offense of conspiracy to commit robbery in third degree because it imposed sentence. There was appropriate notice because charge of conspiracy to commit robbery in first degree contained within it the lesser included offense.
|
|||||
| Washington v. Comm'r of Corr., SC 18057,
SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT, July 15, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Construction of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-98d in Harris, Cox and Hunter was properly applied retroactively to recalculate inmate's release date by applying presentence confinement credits to sentence on first 2 dockets, rather than all 4 dockets. New construction of statute resolved inconsistencies and did not violate due process or double jeopardy.
|
|||||
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. |
