State v. Vitale

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Citation826 A.2d 178,264 Conn. 906
Decision Date04 June 2003
PartiesSTATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JOHN E. VITALE, JR.

264 Conn. 906
826 A.2d 178

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
JOHN E. VITALE, JR.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Decided June 4, 2003.


Michael A. D'Onofrio, special public defender, in support of the petition.

Michele C. Lukban, assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 76 Conn. App. 1 (AC 22224), is denied.

SULLIVAN, C. J., and KATZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 practice notes
  • Stage v. Martinez, 95 Conn. App. 162 (CT 5/2/2006), (AC 26647).
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 2, 2006
    ...not within our province to overrule our Supreme Court. State v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 551, 820 A.2d 1076, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 908, 826 A.2d 178 10. The defendant's claim was not preserved at trial for appellate review. 11. The defendant also argues that claims relating to consciousn......
  • First Ct. Capital v. Homes of Westport, No. 28991.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • February 24, 2009
    ...overrule or modify the precedent of our Supreme Court. State v. Henry, 76 Conn.App. 515, 551, 820 A.2d 1076, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 908, 826 A.2d 178 (2003). Furthermore, even if we assume arguendo that the denial of a motion to open a judgment of foreclosure by sale is not an appealable f......
  • State v. Jose G., No. 24785.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • July 31, 2007
    ...must be excluded where their prejudicial tendency outweighs their probative value." [Internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906, 826 A.2d 178 (2003). Thus, the dissent's conclusion that the defendant had no basis to object on impeachment grounds at trial is without 11.......
  • State v. Thompson, SC 18553
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 19, 2012
    ...On May 28, 2008, the court issued its decision. Citing State v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 820 A.2d 1076, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 908, 826 A.2d 178 (2003), the court concluded that the defendant had forfeited his right of confrontation and any hearsay objection he might otherwise have had re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • Stage v. Martinez, 95 Conn. App. 162 (CT 5/2/2006), (AC 26647).
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 2, 2006
    ...not within our province to overrule our Supreme Court. State v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 551, 820 A.2d 1076, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 908, 826 A.2d 178 10. The defendant's claim was not preserved at trial for appellate review. 11. The defendant also argues that claims relating to consciousn......
  • First Ct. Capital v. Homes of Westport, No. 28991.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • February 24, 2009
    ...overrule or modify the precedent of our Supreme Court. State v. Henry, 76 Conn.App. 515, 551, 820 A.2d 1076, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 908, 826 A.2d 178 (2003). Furthermore, even if we assume arguendo that the denial of a motion to open a judgment of foreclosure by sale is not an appealable f......
  • State v. Jose G., No. 24785.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • July 31, 2007
    ...must be excluded where their prejudicial tendency outweighs their probative value." [Internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert. denied, 264 Conn. 906, 826 A.2d 178 (2003). Thus, the dissent's conclusion that the defendant had no basis to object on impeachment grounds at trial is without 11.......
  • State v. Thompson, SC 18553
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 19, 2012
    ...On May 28, 2008, the court issued its decision. Citing State v. Henry, 76 Conn. App. 515, 820 A.2d 1076, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 908, 826 A.2d 178 (2003), the court concluded that the defendant had forfeited his right of confrontation and any hearsay objection he might otherwise have had re......
  • 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