Supreme Court of Connecticut· 3/16/1999

State v. Daniels

Citations

248 Conn. 64
726 A.2d 520
1999 Conn. LEXIS 58

How courts have described this case

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

assuming, without deciding, that claim of unduly suggestive identification under due process clause applies to revocation of probation proceeding
“We recognize that the defendant’s conviction based on his Alford plea would establish a violation of the conditions of the defendant’s probation .... ”
“[mjootness implicates [this] court’s subject matter jurisdiction and is thus a threshold matter for us to resolve” [internal quotation marks omitted]
\We recognize that the defendant's conviction based on his Alford plea would establish a violation of the conditions of the defendant's probation.\
record inadequate to review unpreserved constitutional claim that out-of-court identification violated defendant’s due process rights because not all facts relevant to claim were adduced in trial court
overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Singleton, 274 Conn. 426, 876 A.2d 1 (2005)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Berdon, Katz, McDonald

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

56 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.