Connecticut Appellate Court· 3/31/1992

State v. Guckian

Citations

27 Conn. App. 225
605 A.2d 874
1992 Conn. App. LEXIS 140

How courts have described this case

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

holding state preserved claim despite failure to object to specific testimony because ‘‘record clearly shows that the state repeatedly alerted the trial court to the issue it now presses on appeal’’
“[i]t is the function of the court as trier of fact to assess the credibility of witnesses”
review afforded where party did not object to testimony but previously alerted trial court to precise question of law
a statement on the floor by a bill’s sponsor is entitled to particular weight
on state’s appeal from sentencing, state not required to file motion to correct in trial court because both “the trial court and this court, on appeal, have the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal”
because record “clearly shows that the state repeatedly alerted the trial court to the issue it now presses on appeal,” failure to object to specific testimony not waiver of state’s claim as long as claim remains same on appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Norcott

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

41 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.