Legal Opinion

Johnson v. State

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided September 13, 1994No. 12591PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connell, J.

Pursuant to General Statutes § 52-270,1 the petitioner brought this petition for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Following an adverse ruling, the petitioner appealed to this *60court claiming that the trial court was obligated to order a new trial because the victim recanted his identification testimony. Related to this claim is the petitioner’s argument concerning the applicable standard for granting a petition for a new trial. In the alternative, the petitioner argues that the trial court abused its discretion by deciding that the victim’s recantation would not likely…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. United States v. AgursSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. State v. PrudholmSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1984
  3. Larrison v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1928
  4. Berry v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1851
  5. United States v. George StofskyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Shabazz v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
  2. Morant v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2009
  3. Gould v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
  4. Williams v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
  5. Channer v. StateConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999

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