State v. Dews

Decision Date02 June 2005
Citation274 Conn. 901,876 A.2d 13
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Eugene DEWS.

Suzanne Zitser, assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

Frederick W. Fawcett, supervisory assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn.App. 63, 864 A.2d 59 (2005), is denied.

NORCOTT and KATZ, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • State v. Angel T.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 30 Junio 2009
    ...mothers, police officer and social worker "further established the consistency of the victims' accusations"), cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901, 876 A.2d 13 (2005). 27. We acknowledge that previous Connecticut cases have relied on split verdicts as evidence that a jury was not so prejudiced by pr......
  • State v. O'brien-Veader
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 8 Septiembre 2015
    ...63, 79–80, 864 A.2d 59 (use of stricken testimony resulting from “confusion or mistake” not impropriety), cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901, 876 A.2d 13 (2005).17 A stage whisper is “a loud whisper by an actor that is audible to the spectators but is supposed for dramatic effect not to be heard b......
  • State v. Cutler
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 1 Septiembre 2009
    ...1064, cert. denied, 281 Conn. 925, 918 A.2d 276 (2007); see also State v. Dews, 87 Conn.App. 63, 75, 864 A.2d 59, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901, 876 A.2d 13 (2005); State v. Ortiz, 40 Conn.App. 374, 381, 671 A.2d 389, cert. denied, 236 Conn. 916, 673 A.2d 1144 (1996). "If the failure to give ......
  • State v. Gibson
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 12 Mayo 2009
    ...close enough to the line to also warrant our further review." State v. Dews, 87 Conn.App. 63, 77, 864 A.2d 59, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901, 876 A.2d 13 (2005). B Having concluded in part II A that the prosecutor's conduct rose to the level of impropriety, we must now determine whether that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT