State v. Greene

7 Citing cases

  1. Greene v. Ricks

    PRISONER CASE NO. 3:07cv60 (JCH) (D. Conn. Jun. 29, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed petitioner's conviction. See State v. Greene, 69 Conn. App. 463, 464 (2002). On June 18, 2002, the Connecticut Supreme Court denied the petition for certification to appeal the decision of the Connecticut Appellate Court.

  2. State v. Greene

    802 A.2d 89 (Conn. 2002)   Cited 2 times

    Decided June 18, 2002 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 69 Conn. App. 463 (AC 20348), is denied. VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

  3. State v. Sawyer

    74 Conn. App. 743 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 6 times

    The jury heard detailed testimony from D concerning the manner in which the defendant sexually assaulted her. Given the graphic nature of the sexual assault, we conclude that D's sister's testimony regarding the threats made by the defendant over the telephone was unlikely to arouse the jury's emotions of hostility and prejudice. See State v. Greene, 69 Conn. App. 463, 471-72, 794 A.2d 1092, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 934, 802 A.2d 89 (2002). The defendant, in pressing his claim of improper admission of the misconduct incidents, relies heavily on State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965, 707 A.2d 1266 (1998).

  4. State v. Hoskie

    74 Conn. App. 663 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 14 times
    Upholding admission of evidence of four instances of misconduct

    Given the potent character of the evidence regarding the charged conduct, we conclude that the nature of the prior misconduct evidence was unlikely to arouse emotions of hostility and prejudice on the part of the fact finder. See State v. Greene, 69 Conn. App. 463, 472, 794 A.2d 1092 (admission of evidence harmless error where prejudicial impact of challenged evidence overshadowed by graphic nature of unchallenged evidence), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 934, 802 A.2d 89 (2002). Moreover, because the case was tried to the court rather than to a jury, the defendant must overcome a greater presumption regarding the likelihood that the fact finder would misuse such evidence in a manner that could unduly prejudice the defendant.

  5. State v. Davis

    803 A.2d 363 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Greene, 69 Conn. App. 463, 467-68, 794 A.2d 1092, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 934, ___ A.2d ___ (2002). "Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . .

  6. State v. Colon

    71 Conn. App. 217 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 32 times
    Concluding that ยง 53a-59 requires that the defendant "must be shown to have had the general intent to engage in conduct evincing an extreme indifference to human life "

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Greene, 69 Conn. App. 463, 467-68, 794 A.2d 1092 (2002). "[E]vidence is relevant only when it tends to establish the existence of a material fact. . . . Such evidence is admissible even when it is not conclusive or is relevant to only a slight degree, provided that it is not prejudicial or simply cumulative. . . . Prejudicial evidence is evidence that tends to have some adverse effect upon a defendant beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission into evidence.

  7. Greene v. Warden

    2005 Ct. Sup. 4716 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    Petitioner appealed her conviction which was upheld by the Appellate Court by decision of April 30, 2002. State v. Greene, 69 Conn.App. 463 (2002). Cert. denied, State v. Greene, 260 Conn. 934 (2002).