From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ali

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Aug 1, 2000
755 A.2d 972 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000)

Opinion

(AC 18424)

Argued May 31, 2000

Officially released August 1, 2000

Procedural History

Substitute information charging the defendant with the crimes of sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the second degree and unlawful restraint in the second degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and tried to the jury before Mulcahy, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.

Joseph S. Elder, for the appellant (defendant).

James M. Ralls, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, state's attorney, and Vicki Melchiorre, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).


Opinion


The defendant, Mohammed Ali, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a)(1), sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a)(2) and unlawful restraint in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-96. On appeal, the defendant has, essentially, attacked the factual findings of the trial court.

After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the victim's capacity or competency to testify was "minimally credible" and denied the defendant's posttrial motion for psychological testing of the victim. See State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 241-45, 575 A.2d 1003, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967, 111 S.Ct. 430, 112 L.Ed.2d 413 (1990); State v. James, 211 Conn. 555, 563-65, 560 A.2d 426 (1989). Additionally, the court's conclusion that the victim was competent to testify is supported by the evidence, and the court's related underlying factual findings are not clearly erroneous. See State v. Hydock, 51 Conn. App. 753, 764, 725 A.2d 379, cert. denied, 248 Conn. 921, 733 A.2d 846 (1999). We therefore conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision conforms to the applicable law.


Summaries of

State v. Ali

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Aug 1, 2000
755 A.2d 972 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000)
Case details for

State v. Ali

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MOHAMMED ALI

Court:Appellate Court of Connecticut

Date published: Aug 1, 2000

Citations

755 A.2d 972 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000)
755 A.2d 972

Citing Cases

State v. Ali

Decided October 31, 2000 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 59…