State v. Otto

3 Citing cases

  1. Otto v. Armstrong

    Case No. 3:98CV2425 (D. Conn. Feb. 28, 2001)

    On October 22, 1998, the Connecticut Supreme Court denied certification. See State v. Otto, 719 A.2d 1171 (Conn. 1998). On December 11, 1998, the petitioner commenced this federal habeas action.

  2. State v. Servello

    80 Conn. App. 313 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that "the defendant did not merely reiterate the same false statement multiple times, but rather, he made three false statements involving different occurrences, and the [s]tate had to prove each of the defendant's statements false by proof specific to each statement"

    State v. Cotton, supra, 77 Conn. App. 765. In this instance, we conclude that the two offenses constitute the "same offense" under a Blockburger analysis because only one of the offenses requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not.State v. Otto, 50 Conn. App. 1, 19, 717 A.2d 775, cert. denied, 247 Conn. 927, 719 A.2d 1171 (1998). "Our analysis of double jeopardy claims does not end, however, with a comparison of the offenses.

  3. State v. Anderson

    M09MCR140204542S (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 29, 2016)

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Otto, 50 Conn.App. 1, 11, 717 A.2d 775, cert. denied, 247 Conn. 927, 719 A.2d 1171 (1998). When a defendant is charged with the commission of a crime for which the state must prove recklessness, evidence of mental impairment is relevant.