Skip to main content

State v. Hampton

Citations

  • 988 A.2d 167
  • 293 Conn. 435
  • 2009 Conn. LEXIS 367

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that claim on appeal regarding motion to suppress was not preserved because claim was not distinctly raised in motion to suppress or during suppression hearing
  • following Marone and concluding that Salamon is applicable to pending appeal in case tried nearly two years prior to its release
  • permitting defendant to file supplemental brief raising new claim in light of new constitutional rule announced in Salamon, which was released after defendant filed initial brief on appeal
  • defense counsel was clearly aware of defect subsequently raised on appeal when trial court twice raised with counsel question whether unanimity instruction was required
  • case law and rules of practice generally limit review to issues distinctly raised at trial
  • “judgments that are not by their terms limited to prospective application are presumed to apply retroactively ... to cases that are pending” [internal quotation marks omitted]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Katz, Norcott, Palmer, Vertefeuille, Zarella

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

63 cases in this archive cite 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.