State v. THOMAS W.

How courts have described this case

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

• jury reasonably could be expected to conclude that defendant's viewing of child victim in bathroom was for purpose of sexual gratification in light of earlier incident in which defendant exposed himself and masturbated in victim's presence
• “The general purpose of § 53-21 is to protect the physical and psychological well-being of children from the potentially harmful conduct of adults.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Kitchens
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-01-05· cited 242×
• State v. Winot
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-02-16· cited 69×
• State v. THOMAS W.
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-08-02· cited 18×
• Brathwaite v. People
  Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands· 2014-01-09· cited 11×
• State v. Morlo M.
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2021-08-10· cited 8×
• State v. THOMAS W.
  Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-11-17· cited 7×
• State v. Elliott
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2011-03-22· cited 7×
• State v. Morlo M.
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2020-07-07· cited 1×
• State v. Jarmon
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2020-01-14