Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Calabrese

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided August 4, 2009No. AC 27916Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBishop, J.

I agree with the majority that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the trial court’s judgment of conviction. I disagree, however, with my colleagues’ conclusion that the court incorrectly excluded from evidence a tape of messages left on the answering machine of the defendant, Edan F. Calabrese, and that the exclusion of this evidence likely affected the jury’s verdict as to the charges of assault of an elderly person in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61a (a) (1) and burglary in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-102 (a) (1). Accordingly, I…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. California v. TybergSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. State v. WhelanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1986
  3. State v. CalabreseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  4. State v. BonnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
  5. State v. ReddickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1993

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API