State v. Arthur

Decision Date21 July 2011
CitationState v. Arthur, 302 Conn. 910, 23 A.3d 1249 (Conn. 2011)
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of Connecticutv.Johnnie ARTHUR.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREAuden Grogins, special public defender, in support of the petition.Rocco A. Chiarenza, deputy assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 128 Conn.App. 371, 18 A.3d 610, is denied.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • State v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 2012
    ...admissible.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Arthur, 128 Conn.App. 371, 383, 18 A.3d 610, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 910, 23 A.3d 1249 (2011). “In State v. Whelan ... we reviewed our continued adherence to the traditional rule prohibiting the use as substantive evidence of a prior......
  • Arthur v. Comm'r of Corr.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • January 26, 2016
    ...in affirming the petitioner's conviction on direct appeal, State v. Arthur, 128 Conn. App. 371, 18 A.3d 610, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 910, 23 A.3d 1249 (2011), stated that the jury could have reasonably found the following facts. "On the evening of September 29, 2007, the victim, Andrew Garn......
  • Arthur v. Comm'r of Corr.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • January 26, 2016
    ...in affirming the petitioner's conviction on direct appeal, State v. Arthur, 128 Conn.App. 371, 18 A.3d 610, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 910, 23 A.3d 1249 (2011), stated that the jury could have reasonably found the following facts. "On the evening of September 29, 2007, the victim, Andrew Garne......
  • State v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 2012
    ...admissible.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Arthur, 128 Conn. App. 371, 383, 18 A.3d 610, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 910, 23 A.3d 1249 (2011). ''In State v. Whelan . . . we reviewed our continued adherence to the traditional rule prohibiting the use as substantive evidence of a ......
  • Get Started for Free