State v. Vargas

13 Citing cases

  1. State v. Diaz

    860 A.2d 791 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 9 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vargas, 80 Conn. App. 454, 461, 835 A.2d 503 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 913, 840 A.2d 1175(2004). The court's statement that it believed that it was "plain that the defendant had possession of the narcotics, but then discarded [them]," clearly was improper.

  2. State v. Vargas

    840 A.2d 1175 (Conn. 2004)

    Decided January 13, 2004 The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 80 Conn. App. 454 (AC 23158), is denied. Frederick W. Fawcett, supervisory assistant state's attorney, in support of the petition.

  3. State v. Favoccia

    119 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 17 times
    Holding defendant preserved claim despite failure to expressly predicate subsequent objections on credibility basis earlier advanced because he had previously alerted court to precise question of law pertaining thereto

    As we have noted, "[c]entral to a defendant's right to a fair trial is the right to have issues of fact and credibility decided by the jury." State v. Vargas, 80 Conn. App. 454, 462, 835 A.2d 503 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 913, 840 A.2d 1175 (2004); see also Ardoline v. Keegan, 140 Conn. 552, 555, 102 A.2d 352 (1954) ("[i]t must always be borne in mind that litigants have a constitutional right to have issues of fact decided by the jury"). Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the fact finder, into which no expert may venture.

  4. State v. Makee R

    117 Conn. App. 191 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 9 times

    We conclude that they did not. See State v. Vargas, 80 Conn. App. 454, 462, 835 A.2d 503 (2003), ("[c]entral to a defendant's right to a fair trial is the right to have issues of fact and credibility decided by the jury"), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 913, 840 A.2d 1175 (2004). It is well settled that jury instructions are to be reviewed in their entirety.

  5. State v. Galarza

    97 Conn. App. 444 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 19 times

    State v. Davis, 61 Conn. App. 621, 633, 767 A.2d 137, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 951, 770 A.2d 31 (2001). We also note that the court instructed the jury immediately after Bonilla testified that Rivera's statement was not being offered for the truth of the matter, but merely as evidence of his state of mind. Unless there is some indication to the contrary, a jury is presumed to follow the court's instruction.State v. Vargas, 80 Conn. App. 454, 468, 835 A.2d 503 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 913, 840 A.2d 1175 (2004). The defendant argues that the state ignored this instruction by arguing Rivera's statement for its truth during final argument.

  6. Vargbv v. Doe

    96 Conn. App. 399 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 57 times
    Vacating order rendered pursuant to Practice Book § 11–20A, the civil counterpart of Practice Book § 42–49A, because court did not follow mandatory procedural requirements

    The complaint sounds in six counts, and its allegations arise from the plaintiff's acquittal on charges that he sexually assaulted a daughter of the defendants in October, 2000. The plaintiff was tried twice on these charges. The first trial resulted in a conviction, which was reversed on appeal. State v. Vargas, 80 Conn. App. 454, 835 A.2d 503 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 913, 840 A.2d 1174 (2004). The second trial resulted in the plaintiff's acquittal, after which he filed this civil action, alleging in part that the defendants have accused falsely various individuals, including the plaintiff, of sexually molesting their children.

  7. State v. Liborio

    889 A.2d 821 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 22 times
    In State v. Liborio A., 93 Conn.App. 279, 889 A.2d 821 (2006), this court noted: “While we are mindful that the defendant's task to lay a foundation as to the likely relevance of records to which he is not privy is not an easy one, we are also mindful of the witness' legitimate interest in maintaining, to the extent possible, the privacy of her confidential records.... On review, we must determine whether the trial court's decision constituted an abuse of discretion.... In making such a determination, this court must conduct an in camera inspection of the sealed records....

    (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vargas, 80 Conn. App. 454, 469-70, 835 A.2d 503 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 913, 840 A.2d 1175 (2004). "In making such a determination, this court must conduct an in camera inspection of the sealed records."

  8. State v. Dejesus

    91 Conn. App. 47 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 21 times
    In DeJesus, with respect to a 2000 incident separate from the 2001 incident, "[t]he victim was told to enter an isolated room with the defendant.

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Walsh, 52 Conn. App. 708, 722, 728 A.2d 15, cert. denied, 249 Conn. 911, 733 A.2d 233 (1999); see also State v. Vargas, 80 Conn. App. 454, 469-70, 835 A.2d 503 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 913, 840 A.2d 1175 (2004). In the present case, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to perform the requested in camera review of the victim's records.

  9. State v. Anderson

    86 Conn. App. 854 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 29 times
    In State v. Anderson, 86 Conn.App. 854, 864 A.2d 35 (2005), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 924, 871 A.2d 1031, the Connecticut appellate court held that testimony from a certified nurse practitioner regarding information provided by a victim of sexual assault was admissible under the medical exception to the hearsay rule.

    It is well known that a jury is presumed to follow the court's instructions in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary. State v. Vargas, 80 Conn. App. 454, 468, 835 A.2d 503 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 913, 840 A.2d 1175 (2004). As the United States Supreme Court has stated, "[J]urors are well equipped to analyze the evidence.

  10. State v. Flowers

    85 Conn. App. 681 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 14 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vargas, 80 Conn. App. 454, 468, 835 A.2d 503 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 913, 840 A.2d 1175 (2004). If the jury followed the judge's instructions, as it was supposed to do, then to convict the defendant of burglary in the first degree, it would had to have determined that he had intended to commit the inchoate crime of attempted assault.