Supreme Court of Connecticut· 7/2/2002

State v. Nunes

Citations

260 Conn. 649
800 A.2d 1160
2002 Conn. LEXIS 247

How courts have described this case

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

determining that testimony of prior misconduct reasonably permitted inference that defendant previously administered chloral hydrate despite lack of evidence showing defendant actually administered drugs or there were drugs in witness’ system
talismanic phraseology not necessary when appellate court can infer that trial court conducted balancing test
“on a certified appeal, our focus is on the judgment of the Appellate Court . . . and we ordinarily do not review claims not raised therein” [citation omitted]
expert testimony concerning effects of chloral hydrate sufficient for jury to find that “the effects felt by the victim were consistent with those effects that one would expect after ingesting chloral hydrate”
“on a certified appeal, our focus is on the judgment of the Appellate Court . . . and we ordinarily do not review claims not raised therein” [citation omitted]
term ‘‘reason- able medical certainty’’ means ‘‘reasonable medical probability standard,’’ which is standard that is applied to ensure that expert opinions are not based on mere speculation or conjecture

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Borden

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named State v. Nunes

17 other CourtListener records share this case 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.