Franklin Coy Kuhl, Jr. v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• defendant’s Facebook messages ‘‘acknowledged that the police were getting warrants and building a case against him’’ and that defendant intended to ‘‘eat the charge’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• ‘‘[i]n light of the close relationship between [General Stat- utes] §§ 53a-151 (a) and 53a-151a (a
• \[w]e conclude that the state is precluded from arguing that the defendant's text message constituted a true threat because the state never pursued such a theory of guilt at trial\
• defendant’s Facebook messages ‘‘acknowledged that the police were getting warrants and building a case against him’’ and that defendant intended to ‘‘eat the charge’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• it was reasonable for jury to infer that, when defendant knew that an individual had relayed relevant information to police, defendant believed that individual would likely be called to testify about that information at future proceeding
• ‘‘[i]n light of the close relationship between [General Stat- utes] §§ 53a-151 (a) and 53a-151a (a), it is appropriate October 22, 2024 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 131 350 Conn. 209 OCTOBER, 2024 247 Esposito v. Stamford to give the same phrase in each statute the same mean- ing’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).