 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Cuesta, (AC 20583),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 26, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The third party's semen evidence would not have been more probative to the defense than prejudicial to the victim and such questioning would only have served to harass and embarrass the victim and confuse or mislead the jury.
|
|||||
| State v. Downing, (AC 20826),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 26, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Criminologist's conclusions were supported by facts already in evidence and corroborated State's theory. While some of prosecutor's remarks may have been inappropriate, none rose to level of prosecutorial misconduct.
|
|||||
| State v. Dudley, (AC 19701),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 26, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rape defendant's argument that he was denied fair trial by State's cross-examination of him was rejected, as defendant was properly subjected to the same rules and tests that were applied to other witnesses, and was not immune from impeachment.
|
|||||
| State v. Iannazzi, (AC 21241),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 26, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police statement that defendant might be or was in array was not impermissible or unnecessarily suggestive. Prosecutor's single comment responded to defense argument, was not egregious, and did not vouch for witness.
|
|||||
| State v. Mitchell, CR91407997,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 26, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reviewing court affirmed defendant's consecutive sentences of 10 years for kidnapping and 5 years on each of 3 sexual assault counts, for total effective sentence of 25 years; sentence was neither disproportionate nor inappropriate.
|
|||||
| State v. Ramos, CR98100499, CR98101445,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WINDHAM, AT PUTNAM, February 26, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based upon defendant's consistent and deplorable criminal history of drug use and sale, the panel found the sentence imposed to be neither inappropriate nor disproportionate.
|
|||||
| State v. Sanchez, CR95109215,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FAIRFIELD, AT BRIDGEPORT, February 26, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In reviewing defendant's actions in a senseless and vicious murder, panel found sentence imposed for assassination was within statutory parameters.
|
|||||
| State v. Trotman, (AC 21242),
APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 26, 2002, Officially Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's finding that the urine sample tested positive for the presence of an opiate was not clearly erroneous. The unambiguous terms of the plea agreement and the positive test results indicated defendant violated the agreement.
|
|||||
| State v. Warren, CR9559185, CR9559111, CR9559897, CR9559187, CR9559112, CR95-59111, CR95-59897, CR95-59187, CR95-59112,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 26, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court took sufficient consideration of expert reports for sentencing options. Defendant's conduct was vile and destructive in its application and sentence was fashioned to reflect harm to victims and society.
|
|||||
| Steer v. Banfield, FA940541708,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD, AT HARTFORD, February 26, 2002, Decided , February 26, 2002, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Wife was not found in contempt of court for failure to pay tax debt or remove husband's name from mortgage since her failure was not wilful or contemptuous but result of credit history and other financial difficulties.
|
|||||
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. |
