State v. Sanchez

Decision Date06 October 2004
Citation271 Conn. 929,859 A.2d 585
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Edwin SANCHEZ.
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court

Kent Drager, senior assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

Mitchell S. Brody, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 84 Conn.App. 583, 854 A.2d 778 (2004), is denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Snell v. Norwalk Yellow Cab, Inc.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 13, 2019
    ...considering the adequacy of a jury instruction; see State v. Sanchez , 84 Conn. App. 583, 592 n.10, 854 A.2d 778, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 929, 859 A.2d 585 (2004) ; is not binding on this court." (Emphasis omitted.) Snell v. Norwalk Yellow Cab, Inc. , supra, 172 Conn. App. at 66–67, 158 A.3......
  • State v. Singleton
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • September 26, 2006
    ...great deference." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sanchez, 84 Conn.App. 583, 587-88, 854 A.2d 778, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 929, 859 A.2d 585 (2004); see also State v. Chace, 43 Conn.App. 205, 207-208, 682 A.2d 143 (1996). "Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determini......
  • State v. Ebron
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 28, 2009
    ...an instruction's uniformity with the model instructions is a relevant and persuasive factor in our analysis"), cert. denied, 271 Conn. 929, 859 A.2d 585 (2004). 28. We also agree with the state that any potential impropriety in the charge was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the fou......
  • Sanchez v. Comm'r of Corr.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • April 13, 2021
    ...the court denied." (Footnote added and omitted.) State v. Sanchez , 84 Conn. App. 583, 585–86, 854 A.2d 778, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 929, 859 A.2d 585 (2004).This court affirmed the trial court's judgment on appeal. Id., at 594, 854 A.2d 778. The petitioner made four arguments in his direct......
  • 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