Supreme Court of Connecticut· 7/27/1999

State v. King

Citations

249 Conn. 645
735 A.2d 267
1999 Conn. LEXIS 261

How courts have described this case

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

noting that defendant sought to prevail under Golding but concluding that defendant’s claim of improper restriction on cross-examination was evidentiary, not constitutional
noting that the defendant’s failure to argue that the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanation was “insufficient or pretextual” at step three “may be treated as acquiescence in the validity of” the explanation
explaining that conduct must be ‘‘assertive in nature, that is, meant to be a communication—like the nodding or shaking of the head in answer to a question—[to be] treated as a state- ment’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
“[i]f the proffered evidence is not relevant, the defendant’s right to confrontation is not affected, and the evidence was properly excluded” [internal quotation marks omitted]
“if the legislature had sought to distinguish between the different degrees of kidnapping for purposes of § 53a-54b [5], it knew how to do so”
defendant's counsel's failure to attempt to rebut the prosecutor's reason may be regarded as acquiescence by the defendant in the validity of the prosecutor's explanation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Berdon, Palmer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

51 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.