Supreme Court of Connecticut· 4/22/1986

State v. Wilson

Citations

199 Conn. 417
513 A.2d 620
1986 Conn. LEXIS 783

How courts have described this case

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

fleeting reference to attorney, considered in context, may not amount to invocation of right to counsel depending on circumstances
declining to decide between conflicting oral and written findings, but noting that “[t]he reduction of one’s thoughts to writing generally indicates a greater opportunity for considered analysis and careful reflection”
using provision of Practice Book governing civil procedure, namely, Practice Book (1978-1997) § 326, now Practice Book § 17-4, to inform interpretation of common-law rule applicable in criminal cases
borrowing civil rule of practice providing for four months to open judgments
“during the continuance of a term of court the judge holding it has, in a sense, absolute control over judgments rendered; that is, he [or she] can declare and subsequently modify or annul them” [internal quotation marks omitted]
“[a]n articulation may be necessary where the trial court fails to completely state any basis for its decision; or where the basis, although stated, is unclear” [internal quotation marks omitted]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dannehy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases with this 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.