State v. Pascal
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Citation | 957 A.2d 880,289 Conn. 917 |
| Decision Date | 10 September 2008 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Brent PASCAL. |
v.
Brent PASCAL.
Mary H. Trainer, special public defender, in support of the petition.
Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 109 Conn.App. 55, 950 A.2d 566 (2008), is denied.
VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.
To continue reading
Request your trial
13 cases
-
State v. Vasquez
...523, 540, 529 A.2d 653 (1987).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pascal, 109 Conn.App. 55, 66, 950 A.2d 566, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 917, 957 A.2d 880 (2008). The Williams factors include “the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the im......
-
State v. Vasquez
......in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540, 529 A.2d 653 (1987).'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pascal, 109 Conn. App. 55, 66, 950 A.2d 566, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 917, 957 A.2d 880 (2008). The Williams factors include "the extent to which the impropriety was invited by defense conduct, the severity of the impropriety, the frequency of the impropriety, the centrality of the impropriety to the ......
-
State v. Carbone, 29480.
......in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540, 529 A.2d 653 (1987)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pascal, 109 Conn.App. 55, 66, 950 A.2d 566, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 917, 957 A.2d 880 (2008). Furthermore, "[i]n analyzing claims of prosecutorial [impropriety], [whether they are preserved or not], we engage in a two step analytical process. The two steps are separate and distinct: (1) whether ......
-
State v. Weaving
...... Williams .. " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pascal, 109 Conn.App. 55, 66, 950 A.2d 566, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 917, 957 A.2d 880 (2008). "In analyzing claims of prosecutorial impropriety, we engage in a two step process.. First, we must determine whether any impropriety in fact occurred; second, we must examine whether that impropriety, or the ......
Request a trial to view additional results