Skip to main content

State v. Pierson

Citations

  • 201 Conn. 211
  • 514 A.2d 724
  • 1986 Conn. LEXIS 953

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that jury instructions omitting reference to 5 Connecticut’s voluntary-act requirement are not “constitutionally defective” when, as relevant here, “the evidence at trial contains no suggestion that the defendant’s conduct was involuntary”
  • requiring voir dire of expert \[w]here there is any reasonable basis in the evidence for believing that psychiatric personnel may have information relating to the mental condition of a witness that might affect his testimony\
  • ‘‘[w]e have held that sexual assault in the first degree is a general intent crime with no element of specific intent’’
  • §§ 52-146d and 52-146e constitute “legislative restrictions upon the principle of implied waiver”
  • testimony by victim, victim’s mother and psychiatrist about sexual assault did not establish waiver with respect to “wholly separate communications related to treatment of the [victim] or his mother”
  • “[t]houghthe state bears the burden of disproving the [defense of duress] once . . . raised by the presentation of some evidence supporting [it], there is no requirement that evidence negating [it] be produced as part of the state’s prima facie case” [emphasis added]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Shea

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases named State v. Pierson

48 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.