State v. Hill
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SULLIVAN, J.
The issue presented in this case is whether the trial court properly found that the defendant, Harold Hill, had violated his probation and that his probation should be revoked, when the defendant claims that the violation was not wilful. The defendant argues that a probation violation must be wilful in order for the trial court to revoke probation. The state argues that there is no such wilfulness requirement, and that, in any event, the defendant’s probation violation was wilful. We agree with the state that the defendant’s conduct need not be wilful in order to constitute…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Bearden v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Black v. RomanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- State v. DenbySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- State v. FaganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- State v. FaradaySupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- State v. McCormickWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. McCormickWashington Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. T.R.D.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.