State ex rel. KRJ

How courts have described this case

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

• “[d]ue process requires that a criminal defendant be given notice of the specific charge against him and an opportunity to defend against that charge”
• “[a] criminal defendant has no constitutional right to a jury instruction on a separate, uncharged crime”
• “there is nothing on the record to suggest that the defendant would have changed his defense in any way had the state included the ‘threat of force’ theory of liability in the information”
• question whether complainant was a virgin prior to sexual assault properly excluded as irrelevant
• sixth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 8 of the Connecticut constitution guarantee a defendant a right to be specifically informed of the nature of the charges against him
• trial court did not err in prohibiting the defendant from asking the victim on cross-examination whether she had been a virgin prior to the alleged sexual assault, the defendant having failed to establish that the testimony was relevant to a material issue in the case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).