Mitchell v. State
Citations
- 338 Conn. 66
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 54-95 (a)), ''[n]o appeal may be taken from a judgment denying a petition for a new trial unless, within ten days after the judgment is rendered, the judge who heard the case . . . certifies that a question is involved in the decision which ought to be reviewed by the Supreme Court or by the Appellate Court.'' The petitioner, who had been convicted of numerous crimes, including attempt to commit murder, conspiracy to commit murder, kidnapping in the first degree, sexual assault in the first degree, and assault in the first degree in connection with an incident in which the petitioner and a coconspirator sexually assaulted the victim at gunpoint and then shot her several times, filed a petition for a new trial based on a claim of newly discovered evidence. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that there was newly discovered evidence in the form of technologically enhanced security camera footage that had been shown to the jury, which made it clear that it was the coconspirator and not the petitioner who had exited the petitioner's car and approached the victim's body after she had been shot, as well as certain impeachment evidence relating to the posttrial arrest and conviction of H, the lead detective in the petitioner's criminal case, in connection with H's involvement in a forgery scheme. The petitioner also claimed that the prosecutor improperly withheld certain exculpatory evidence and introduced false testimony from the victim. The trial court denied the petition for a new trial, concluding, inter alia, that the evidence against the petitioner was overwhelming and that it was not probable that the new evidence regarding the security camera footage or H's conviction would produce a different result at a new trial. The petitioner then appealed to the Appellate Court but did so without first seeking certification to appeal pursuant to § 54-95 (a). After the appeal was pending for almost one year, the Appellate Court notified the petitioner t
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
44 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
- Pinkerton v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1946-10-14· cited 3,200×
- Lozada v. DeedsSupreme Court· 1991-02-19· cited 398×
- State v. WaltonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-08-03· cited 157×
- Asherman v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-03-03· cited 112×
- Horton v. MeskillSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-05-25· cited 102×
- Rosenblit v. DanaherSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-02-02· cited 102×
- State v. HamptonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-09-15· cited 98×
- In re Jonathan M.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-01-16· cited 98×
- Demers v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-09-13· cited 79×
- State v. OuelletteSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-03-16· cited 72×
- Iovieno v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-08-26· cited 71×
- State v. OrtizSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-12-26· cited 67×
- State v. L'HEUREUXSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1974-05-07· cited 64×
- State v. HolleySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-01-12· cited 51×
- Jaquith v. RevsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1970-06-02· cited 46×
- Shabazz v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-03-26· cited 40×
- Skakel v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-04-20· cited 37×
- Segretario v. Stewart-Warner Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court· 1986-12-23· cited 37×
- Seebeck v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-08-25· cited 33×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.