State v. Smith

Decision Date16 October 1997
Citation702 A.2d 642,243 Conn. 935
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Joshua C. SMITH.

Richard T. Meehan, Jr., Bridgeport, in support of the petition.

Judith Rossi, Senior Assistant State's Attorney, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 46 Conn.App. 600, 700 A.2d 91 (AC 16374), is denied.

CALLAHAN, C.J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Aponte
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 27 Julio 1999
    ...the exclusive purview of the jury to resolve at trial. State v. Smith, 46 Conn. App. 600, 608, 700 A.2d 91, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 935, 702 A.2d 642 (1997)." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Aponte, supra, 50 Conn. App. 123-24. We agree with the Appellate Cou......
  • State v. Caballero
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 21 Julio 1998
    ...art. I, § 19, as amended by art. IV of the amendments." State v. Smith, 46 Conn.App. 600, 603, 700 A.2d 91, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 935, 702 A.2d 642 (1997); see also Practice Book § 848, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 42-12. The purpose of voir dire examination is to " 'facilitate [the] i......
  • State v. Caballero, 16007
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 21 Julio 1998
    ...art. I, §§ 19, as amended by art. IV of the amendments." State v. Smith, 46 Conn. App. 600, 603, 700 A.2d 91, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 935, 702 A.2d 642 (1997); see also Practice Book §§ 848, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) §§ 42-12. The purpose of voir dire examination is to "`facilitate [the......
  • State v. Dearing
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 31 Enero 2012
    ...citing State v. James, supra, at 564–65, 560 A.2d 426, and State v. Smith, 46 Conn.App. 600, 608, 700 A.2d 91, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 935, 702 A.2d 642 (1997). In James, “[o]ur Supreme Court, reject[ed] a challenge to the constitutionality of § 54–86h [and] discussed with approval ‘the mod......
  • 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