State v. Alford

14 Citing cases

  1. State v. Delgado

    42 Conn. App. 382 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 3 times

    We further note that the factual scenarios of those cases are easily distinguishable from the present case, because in each of these cases, with regard to the risk of injury count, the defendant committed some act of violence, whether on the victim or a third party, whereas in the present case, the defendant was charged with having acquiesced in the physical abuse of the victim not inflicted by the defendant. See State v. DeJesus, 236 Conn. 189, 672 A.2d 488 (1996) (defendant killed his estranged girlfriend with machete while her two children were playing nearby); State v. Chicano, 216 Conn. 699, 584 A.2d 425 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1254, 111 S.Ct. 2898, 115 L.Ed.2d 1062 (1991) (defendant killed minor victim by strangulation and killed his mother and her boyfriend with a crowbar); State v. Alford, 37 Conn. App. 180, 655 A.2d 782, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 914, 660 A.2d 357 (1995) (defendant struck and beat two year old victim on numerous occasions); State v. Migliaro, 28 Conn. App. 388, 611 A.2d 422 (1992) (state presented evidence that minor victim died as the result of head injury caused by abuse, or shaken baby syndrome, inflicted by defendant, who was convicted of criminally negligent homicide and risk of injury to a child). We further agree with the defendant that the evidence presented against him on the manslaughter count consisted primarily of the noises heard by the defendant's downstairs neighbors, and the testimony of Bruno's sister that the defendant wanted her to "come and get the baby."

  2. State v. Alford

    660 A.2d 357 (Conn. 1995)

    Decided June 26, 1995 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 37 Conn. App. 180 (AC 11826), is denied. William Holden, public defender, in support of the petition.

  3. State v. Lewis

    146 Conn. App. 589 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 9 times

    The cases to which the defendant cites for support are distinguishable, however, not only because of their individual facts but also because they all involved permanent, not impermanent, injuries. See, e.g., State v. Nelson, 118 Conn.App. 831, 848, 986 A.2d 311 (burn marks and scars caused by defendant pressing heated tools on victim's face and abdomen), cert. denied, 295 Conn. 911, 989 A.2d 1074 (2010); State v. Alford, 37 Conn.App. 180, 185, 655 A.2d 782 (1995) (child's head injuries caused by defendant's abuse); State v. Suarez, 23 Conn.App. 705, 711, 584 A.2d 1194 (1991) (facial wounds caused by defendant striking victim in face with glass). The defendant has not provided and we have not found any authority for the proposition that impermanency can correlate with a lack of seriousness for purposes of defining a physical injury as “serious” under §§ 53a–3 (4) and 53a–60 (a)(1), despite our holding in Denson.

  4. State v. Harris

    85 Conn. App. 637 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 19 times

    " (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alford, 37 Conn. App. 180, 184, 655 A.2d 782, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 914, 660 A.2d 357 (1995).The state presented sufficient evidence, through the testimony of Simpson, Dozier and Jamison, to support the jury's finding that the defendant was the person who fired the weapon.

  5. State v. Waden

    852 A.2d 817 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 8 times

    " (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alford, 37 Conn. App. 180, 184, 655 A.2d 782, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 914, 660 A.2d 357 (1995). A

  6. Puchalsky v. Rappahahn

    774 A.2d 1029 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 10 times

    This determination will be disturbed only where there is a clear abuse of discretion or where manifest injustice has been done. Id.; State v. Alford, 37 Conn. App. 180, 186, 655 A.2d 782, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 914, 660 A.2d 357 (1995)." State v. Sinchak, 47 Conn. App. 134, 144-45, 703 A.2d 790 (1997), appeal dismissed, 247 Conn. 440, 721 A.2d 1193 (1999).

  7. Cooks v. O'Brien Properties, Inc.

    48 Conn. App. 339 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 39 times
    In Cooks v. O'Brien Properties, Inc., 48 Conn App. 339, 710 A.2d 788 (1998), the court ruled that the trial court properly instructed the jury that, when determining if unusual circumstances existed, they could consider "evidence presented with respect to the changeover in precipitation and the availability of alternative means of egress from the defendant's property in determining whether such unusual circumstances existed on the day of the plaintiff's accident."

    This determination will be disturbed only where there is a clear abuse of discretion or where manifest injustice has been done. Id.; State v. Alford, 37 Conn. App. 180, 186, 655 A.2d 782, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 914, 660 A.2d 357 (1995)." State v. Sinchak, 47 Conn. App. 134, 144-45, 703 A.2d 790 (1997).

  8. State v. Faria

    47 Conn. App. 159 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 31 times
    Concluding that other misconduct evidence had little probative value and its admission “created a very strong likelihood that the [jurors'] emotions were unduly roused”

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alford, 37 Conn. App. 180, 184, 655 A.2d 782, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 914, 660 A.2d 357 (1995). The jury heard evidence that the defendant grabbed the victim and attempted two or three times to force her head into his lap, and that she resisted.

  9. State v. Sinchak

    47 Conn. App. 134 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 19 times

    This determination will be disturbed only where there is a clear abuse of discretion or where manifest injustice has been done. Id.; State v. Alford, 37 Conn. App. 180, 186, 655 A.2d 782, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 914, 660 A.2d 357 (1995). Because we conclude that the challenged slides were relevant to the identification of Gianni, the time of death and the mode and manner of death, and were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant reversal, we will not disturb the trial court's ruling of admissibility.

  10. State v. Thompson

    46 Conn. App. 791 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 9 times

    " (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alford, 37 Conn. App. 180, 184, 655 A.2d 782, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 914, 660 A.2d 357 (1995). "In order to prove possession of a narcotic substance, the state must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the character of the drug and its presence and exercised dominion and control over it. . . . Where, as in the present case, the contraband is not found on the defendant's person, the state must proceed on the alternate theory of constructive possession, that is, possession without direct physical contact. . . . Where the defendant is not in exclusive possession of the premises where the narcotics are found, it may not be inferred that [the defendant] knew of the presence of the narcotics and had control of them, unless there are other incriminating statements or circumstances tending to buttress such an inference. . . ."