State v. Batista
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
PETERS, J.
The principal claim in this criminal appeal is that a jury mistakenly identified the defendant as the person who committed certain acts constituting robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree. The defendant maintains that, even if the jury found credible his partial identification as the robber by one of the victims, and his having been referred to by name dining the robbery, his guilt of the crimes with which he was charged was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1987
- State v. StevensonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- State v. FauciSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- State v. LedbetterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mitchell v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2008
- State v. SaundersConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
- State v. BatistaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007