Skip to main content

State v. Austin

Citations

  • 244 Conn. 226
  • 710 A.2d 732
  • 1998 Conn. LEXIS 91

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that “ ‘evidence of a defendant’s intoxication is relevant to negate specific intent which is an essential element of the crime of murder’ ”
  • no reversible error when improper intent instruction followed by numerous proper instructions on elements of murder
  • one-on-one identification reliable where witness was in close range and had unobstructed view in well lit area
  • “ ‘[a]n improper instruction on an element of an offense ... is of constitutional dimension’ ”
  • no possibility that jury was misled with regard to specific intent element of crime even though trial court improperly read entire statutory definition of intent contained in § 53a-3 [11]
  • no reversible error when improper intent instruction followed by numerous proper instructions on elements of murder

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Norcott

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

85 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.