State v. Rucker

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Rucker

511 A.2d 1027, 8 Conn. App. 176, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 1062

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJuly 22, 1986

Docket4295

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 511 A.2d 1027 (State v. Rucker) 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. Rucker, 511 A.2d 1027, 8 Conn. App. 176, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 1062 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree [177]*177in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1). His sole claim on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. We find no error.

The state’s evidence, which the jury was free to believe, was that the defendant struck the victim on the head at least three times with a hammer, causing a depressed skull fracture which resulted in traumatic epilepsy and traumatic labyrinthitis, an inner ear disability. The defendant assaulted the victim as she was kneeling in front of her kitchen sink after getting some nails which the defendant, a neighbor, had asked her to give him for repairs which he was making. The appeal of the defendant, who claimed self-defense, does no more than ask us to substitute his version of the incident for the contrary and compelling evidence which the jury believed.

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree [177]*177in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1). His sole claim on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. We find no error.

The state’s evidence, which the jury was free to believe, was that the defendant struck the victim on the head at least three times with a hammer, causing a depressed skull fracture which resulted in traumatic epilepsy and traumatic labyrinthitis, an inner ear disability. The defendant assaulted the victim as she was kneeling in front of her kitchen sink after getting some nails which the defendant, a neighbor, had asked her to give him for repairs which he was making. The appeal of the defendant, who claimed self-defense, does no more than ask us to substitute his version of the incident for the contrary and compelling evidence which the jury believed.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

511 A.2d 1027, 8 Conn. App. 176, 1986 Conn. App. LEXIS 1062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rucker-connappct-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack