State v. Madigosky

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to reach issue because “lacking citation to the specific language complained about in connection with the appropriate legal analysis, this claim is inadequately briefed”
• differentiating affirmative defenses of mental disease and defect and extreme emotional disturbance
• acquiescence at trial to jury instruction challenged on appeal, without more, does not constitute induced error that would preclude review under Golding
• acquiescence at trial to jury instruction challenged on appeal, without more, does not constitute induced error that would preclude review under Golding
• \[t]here was no induced instructional error ... because the defendant had not submitted a request to charge or suggested any instructional language\ [internal quotation marks omitted]
• ‘‘[t]here was no induced instructional error . . . because the defendant had not submitted a request to charge or suggested any instructional language’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).