Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State v. Padua
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 29, 2005No. SC 16915; SC 16916Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
KATZ, J., with whom BORDEN and NORCOTT, Js.,
join, dissenting and concurring. In the present case, the state had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants, Bethzaida Padua, Wilfredo Cálvente and Miranda Virgilia Cálvente, had created a situation that was likely to harm the health of a child. See General Statutes (Rev. to 1999) § 53-21 (l).1 This court previously has established that, within the context of § 53-21, the term “likely” means “when particular *193subject matter will probably come to be or when its chances of realization are more probable than not.” (Emphasis…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. GrinnellTexas Supreme Court · 1997
- Santopietro v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- State v. RomeroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2004
- LePage v. HorneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Tipton v. Town of TaborSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1995
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.