State v. Snelgrove

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that, because defendant ‘‘continued to be driven by the sexual com- pulsion that led to the prior offenses after his release from prison,’’ sexual compulsion was ‘‘a long-standing feature of the defendant’s psyche’’ that imprisonment temporarily hampered
• declarant's statement that victim \got what she deserved\ was not against penal interest because it did not imply that declarant was responsible for victim's death, even though declarant subsequently confessed to murder [internal quotation marks omitted]
• declarant’s statement that victim “got what she deserved” was not against penal interest because it did not imply that declarant was responsible for victim’s death, even though declarant subsequently confessed to murder [internal quotation marks omitted]
• ‘‘[j]udgments rendered in decisions that are not limited by their terms to prospective application in other cases usually are applied retroactively to other cases pending at the time’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• ‘‘where prior misconduct evidence is otherwise admissible, an extended temporal gap between the prior misconduct and the charged conduct does not render the prior misconduct evidence irrelevant if the defendant was incarcerated during that time’’
• third party’s statement to fellow inmate that he had killed victim was inadmissible when third party ‘‘was suffering from psychiatric problems at the time that he made the statement,’’ which lacked corrobora- tion and was made two to three years after murder and defendant’s arrest

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).