Harrell v. Hahn

How courts have described this case

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

• ‘‘it does not diminish the probative force of the evidence that it consists, in whole or in part, of evidence that is circumstantial rather than direct’’
• “the trial court’s failure specifically to define intent, at least in the absence of a request or exception by the defendant, was not reversible error because it is not reasonably possible that the jury was misled as to its meaning”
• failure to charge on § 54-84 infringes right against self-representation
• ‘‘[i]n cases [in which] a no unfavorable inferences charge was given, but in language deviat- ing slightly from the precise wording of the statute, we have examined the entire charge to see if the words as given were sufficient to satisfy the statute’’
• harmless error may be inconsistent with statute’s unconditional language
• failure to provide statutory definition of “intent”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).