State v. Cox

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Cox

738 A.2d 652, 251 Conn. 54, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 358

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedOctober 19, 1999

DocketSC 16027

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 738 A.2d 652 (State v. Cox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Cox, 738 A.2d 652, 251 Conn. 54, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 358 (Colo. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial, the defendant, Freddie Cox, Jr., was convicted of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2).¹ The defendant appealed his conviction, claiming that “(1) the state committed prosecutorial misconduct during the questioning of witnesses and during its closing argument, (2) the trial court made an improper statement to the jury thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial and (3) the trial court improperly charged the jury, sua sponte, on consciousness of guilt, which allowed the jury to infer flight on an inadequate factual basis.” State v. Cox, 50 Conn. App. 175, 176-77, 718 A.2d 60 (1998). The Appellate Court rejected the defendant’s arguments and affirmed his conviction. Id. We granted certification, limited to the following issues: (1) “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that there was [56]*56a sufficient evidentiary basis for the trial court’s instruction on flight or consciousness of guilt?” and (2) “If the answer to the first question is no, was the error harmful?” State v. Cox, 247 Conn. 928, 719 A.2d 1170 (1998).

Having examined the record on appeal, studied the briefs and heard the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court. See, e.g., Brennan v. Burger King Corp., 244 Conn. 204, 206, 707 A.2d 30 (1998); Murphy v. Buonato, 241 Conn. 319, 321-22, 696 A.2d 320 (1997).

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

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

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial, the defendant, Freddie Cox, Jr., was convicted of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2).¹ The defendant appealed his conviction, claiming that “(1) the state committed prosecutorial misconduct during the questioning of witnesses and during its closing argument, (2) the trial court made an improper statement to the jury thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial and (3) the trial court improperly charged the jury, sua sponte, on consciousness of guilt, which allowed the jury to infer flight on an inadequate factual basis.” State v. Cox, 50 Conn. App. 175, 176-77, 718 A.2d 60 (1998). The Appellate Court rejected the defendant’s arguments and affirmed his conviction. Id. We granted certification, limited to the following issues: (1) “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that there was [56]*56a sufficient evidentiary basis for the trial court’s instruction on flight or consciousness of guilt?” and (2) “If the answer to the first question is no, was the error harmful?” State v. Cox, 247 Conn. 928, 719 A.2d 1170 (1998).

Having examined the record on appeal, studied the briefs and heard the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court. See, e.g., Brennan v. Burger King Corp., 244 Conn. 204, 206, 707 A.2d 30 (1998); Murphy v. Buonato, 241 Conn. 319, 321-22, 696 A.2d 320 (1997).

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

738 A.2d 652, 251 Conn. 54, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cox-conn-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack