State v. Sanders

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Sanders

    658 A.2d 981 (Conn. 1995)

    Decided May 8, 1995 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 37 Conn. App. 219 (AC 13157), is denied. Lewis H. Chimes, special public defender, in support of the petition.

  2. State v. Gonzalez-Rivera

    713 A.2d 847 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 10 times
    Affirming court's rejection of the affirmative defense of EED where the prosecution rebutted expert testimony with only circumstantial evidence of events surrounding the crime

    "Under Golding, a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . The first two conditions are determinations of whether a defendant's claim will be reviewed, and the third condition involves a review of the claim itself. . . . State v. Sanders, 37 Conn. App. 219, 220, 655 A.2d 805, cert. denied, 233 Conn. 909, 658 A.2d 981 (1995); Wilson v. Cohen, 222 Conn. 591, 603, 610 A.2d 1177 (1992); State v. Graham, 33 Conn. App. 432, 442, 636 A.2d 852, cert. denied, 229 Conn. 906, 640 A.2d 117 (1994)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

  3. State v. Santos

    41 Conn. App. 361 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996)   Cited 6 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sanders 37 Conn. App. 219, 220, 655 A.2d 805, cert. denied, 233 Conn. 909, 658 A.2d 981 (1995), Wilson v. Cohen, 222 Conn. 591, 603, 610 A.2d 1177 (1992); State v. Graham, 33 Conn. App. 432, 442, 636 A.2d 852, cert. denied, 229 Conn. 906, 640 A.2d 117 (1994). The defendant claims that the panel, by misconstruing the extreme emotional disturbance standard, denied him the constitutional due process right to establish a defense.