State v. Davis
Citations
- 344 Conn. 122
Syllabus
Convicted of the crime of murder in connection with the stabbing death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had violated his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel by failing to conduct any inquiry into defense counsel's alleged conflict of interest arising from counsel's prior repre- sentation of the victim's son, D. On appeal, this court agreed with the defendant that the trial court had a duty to conduct such an inquiry when the issue was brought to that court's attention in a motion to dismiss counsel and during the defendant's sentencing hearing. This court also concluded, however, that the record was insufficient to deter- mine whether the defendant's claim had merit and, therefore, remanded the case to the trial court for it to determine whether defense counsel had such a conflict and, if so, whether that conflict adversely affected her representation of the defendant. In light of that remand order, this court declined to reach the defendant's additional claim that the trial court had improperly admitted the testimony of three lay witnesses identifying the defendant in surveillance video footage from a store near the crime scene. The footage depicted, inter alia, two men, with their faces visible, approaching and entering the store together before the victim's murder. Additional footage from a different camera angle depicted the backs of two men, dressed similar to those in the other footage, making their way to, and then standing at, the intersection where the murder occurred. Subsequent footage showed one of the men attacking the other man and then running down the street toward the direction of the store. On remand, the trial court, following a hearing at which the defendant and defense counsel testified, determined that the defendant did not timely raise his conflict of interest claim and that, even if he had done so, he failed to establish that defense counsel was 344 Conn. 1
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
34 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court· 1980-05-12· cited 5,389×
- Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSupreme Court· 1971-12-06· cited 2,532×
- Mickens v. TaylorSupreme Court· 2002-03-27· cited 1,451×
- United States v. Ricardo M. InfanteFifth Circuit· 2005-03-21· cited 226×
- United States v. Chaim LevySecond Circuit· 1994-06-03· cited 213×
- State v. TroupeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-06-11· cited 159×
- United States v. Cortland Bay Fulton, Also Known as Tairu Owolabi Alabi, Cortland Bay Fulton v. Warden, Ray Brook Correctional FacilitySecond Circuit· 1993-09-22· cited 135×
- State v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-04-24· cited 129×
- United States v. JackmanFirst Circuit· 1995-02-09· cited 128×
- Phillips v. WardenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-08-13· cited 128×
- Pamela Lynn Perillo v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional DivisionFifth Circuit· 2000-03-02· cited 124×
- Anthony Armienti v. United StatesSecond Circuit· 2000-12-12· cited 114×
- United States v. Lawrence Salvatore IorizzoSecond Circuit· 1986-03-11· cited 92×
- State v. CrespoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-09-01· cited 92×
- State v. VegaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-02-12· cited 92×
- Richardson v. WestSupreme Court· 1999-01-25· cited 90×
- State v. MartinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-12· cited 86×
- Cardoza v. RockSecond Circuit· 2013-09-24· cited 84×
- United States v. AllenFourth Circuit· 1986-04-08· cited 69×
- Neyland v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-02-05· cited 68×
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.