State v. Hernandez

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Hernandez

    254 Conn. 659 (Conn. 2000)   Cited 27 times
    In State v. Hernandez, supra, 254 Conn. at 665, 759 A.2d 79, our Supreme Court noted that the determination of whether the identity of a confidential informant should be disclosed to a defendant lies within the discretion of the trial court.

    With the permission of the trial court, the state appealed to the Appellate Court, which concluded that the trial court properly had ordered disclosure. State v. Hernandez, 53 Conn. App. 706, 714-15, 736 A.2d 137 (1999). We granted certification limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's order requiring the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant?

  2. State v. Hernandez

    738 A.2d 653 (Conn. 1999)   Cited 1 times

    Decided July 21, 1999 The petition for the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 53 Conn. App. 706 (AC 17894), is granted, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's order requiring the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant?

  3. State v. Purvis

    227 Conn. App. 188 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Glassine bags are commonly used to package and sell narcotics; see State v. Elijah, 42 Conn. App. 687, 690, 682 A.2d 506, cert. denied, 239 Conn. 936, 684 A.2d ,709 (1996); and are considered to be drug paraphernalia. See State v. Rosario, 238 Conn. 380, 383, 680 A.2d 237 (1996); State v. DeFusco, 224 Conn. 627, 644–45, 620 A.2d 746 (1993); State v. Slaughter, 151 Conn. App. 340, 344, 95 A.3d 1160, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 916, 100 A.3d 405 (2014); State v. Hernandez, 53 Conn. App. 706, 709, 736 A.2d 137 (1999), aff'd, 254 Conn. 659, 759 A.2d 79 (2000). The glassine bags, which were used by the defendant to hold or contain narcotics, fall within the definition of drug paraphernalia under the statute and provided by the court; therefore, the defendant’s claim is unavailing.

  4. Crowder v. Commissioner of Correction

    786 A.2d 439 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    Relying on counsel's testimony and on its assessment of a letter written by the petitioner to his counsel just prior to the petitioner's guilty plea, the court also concluded that the petitioner was well aware of the option of a trial along with the attendant risks. Because it is not this court's role to reevaluate the credibility of witnesses; Greene v. Perry, 62 Conn. App. 338, 342, 771 A.2d 196, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 917, 773 A.2d 943 (2001); or to second guess a lower court on questions of fact; see State v. Hernandez, 53 Conn. App. 706, 710, 736 A.2d 137 (1999), aff'd, 254 Conn. 659, 759 A.2d 79 (2000); and because the petitioner does not direct us to any defects in the habeas court's legal or logical reasoning, we decline to disturb the court's judgment. The petitioner's brief consists largely of a recitation of the standards for effective assistance of counsel.