Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Santiago

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 29, 1992No. 14152Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBerdon, J.

I agree with the court that the defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation was violated when the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of one of the state’s witnesses. I also agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant access to the police personnel file. Nevertheless, I disagree with the court’s approval of the admission of evidence that is irrelevant and highly prejudicial—that is, the testimony that the gun that was used in the crime and found in the possession of the defendant was stolen.

Evidence of the defendant’s prior…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Huddleston v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. United States v. Larry Allen MyersCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
  3. United States v. Roosevelt v. FoskeyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
  4. State v. BramanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
  5. United States v. Lawrence T. Day. United States of America v. Eric J. SheffeyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1979

18 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