Skip to main content

State v. Hill

Citations

  • 201 Conn. 505
  • 523 A.2d 1252
  • 1986 Conn. LEXIS 1027

How courts have described this case

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

  • defining the term “possess” and upholding the court’s use of examples identical to those in the present case
  • refusing to construe phrase “to exercise dominion or control” as referring only to situation where individual has exercised control
  • applying penal code definitions in title 53a to narcotics offenses codified in title 19
  • ‘‘this control must be exercised intentionally and with knowl- edge of the character of the controlled object’’
  • ‘‘[t]he essence of exercising control is not the manifestation of an act of control but instead it is the act of being in a position of control coupled with the requisite mental intent’’
  • “[because § 53a-3 expressly provides that the definitions contained therein ‘have the following meaning when used in this title’ [emphasis added] it appears the legislature intended to restrict the scope of this provision to Title 53a only”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dannehy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

27 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.