State v. Ali

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Ali

755 A.2d 972, 59 Conn. App. 185, 2000 Conn. App. LEXIS 369

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedAugust 1, 2000

DocketAC 18424

StatusPublished

This text of 755 A.2d 972 (State v. Ali) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Ali, 755 A.2d 972, 59 Conn. App. 185, 2000 Conn. App. LEXIS 369 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Mohammed Ali, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after [186]*186a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (1), sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (2) and unlawful restraint in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-96. On appeal, the defendant has, essentially, attacked the factual findings of the trial court.

After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the victim’s capacity or competency to testify was “minimally credible” and denied the defendant’s post-trial motion for psychological testing of the victim. See State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 241-45, 575 A.2d 1003, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967, 111 S. Ct. 430, 112 L. Ed. 2d 413 (1990); State v. James, 211 Conn. 555, 563-65, 560 A.2d 426 (1989). Additionally, the court’s conclusion that the victim was competent to testify is supported by the evidence, and the court’s related underlying factual findings are not clearly erroneous. See State v. Hydock, 51 Conn. App. 753, 764, 725 A.2d 379, cert. denied, 248 Conn. 921, 733 A.2d 846 (1999). We therefore conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision conforms to the applicable law.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Mohammed Ali, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after [186]*186a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (1), sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (2) and unlawful restraint in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-96. On appeal, the defendant has, essentially, attacked the factual findings of the trial court.

After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the victim’s capacity or competency to testify was “minimally credible” and denied the defendant’s post-trial motion for psychological testing of the victim. See State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 241-45, 575 A.2d 1003, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967, 111 S. Ct. 430, 112 L. Ed. 2d 413 (1990); State v. James, 211 Conn. 555, 563-65, 560 A.2d 426 (1989). Additionally, the court’s conclusion that the victim was competent to testify is supported by the evidence, and the court’s related underlying factual findings are not clearly erroneous. See State v. Hydock, 51 Conn. App. 753, 764, 725 A.2d 379, cert. denied, 248 Conn. 921, 733 A.2d 846 (1999). We therefore conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion and that its decision conforms to the applicable law.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

755 A.2d 972, 59 Conn. App. 185, 2000 Conn. App. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ali-connappct-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack