State v. Wheat

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Wheat

725 A.2d 993, 52 Conn. App. 115, 1999 Conn. App. LEXIS 69

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMarch 2, 1999

DocketAC 18116

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 725 A.2d 993 (State v. Wheat) 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. Wheat, 725 A.2d 993, 52 Conn. App. 115, 1999 Conn. App. LEXIS 69 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[116]*116 Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted, after a trial to the court, of threatening in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62, and reckless endangerment in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-63. He claims that the trial court’s factual findings are not warranted and that its legal conclusions are incorrect. After reviewing the record we conclude that these claims are meritless. The trial court is the judge of the credibility of witnesses and its legal conclusions properly flowed from its factual findings. See State v. Leary, 51 Conn. App. 497, 503-504, 725 A.2d 328 (1999). “ ‘We do not examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact could have reached a conclusion other than the one reached . . . nor do we retry the case or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses.’ ” In re Tabitha T., 51 Conn. App. 595, 599, 722 A.2d 1232 (1999).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

[116]*116 Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted, after a trial to the court, of threatening in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62, and reckless endangerment in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-63. He claims that the trial court’s factual findings are not warranted and that its legal conclusions are incorrect. After reviewing the record we conclude that these claims are meritless. The trial court is the judge of the credibility of witnesses and its legal conclusions properly flowed from its factual findings. See State v. Leary, 51 Conn. App. 497, 503-504, 725 A.2d 328 (1999). “ ‘We do not examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact could have reached a conclusion other than the one reached . . . nor do we retry the case or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses.’ ” In re Tabitha T., 51 Conn. App. 595, 599, 722 A.2d 1232 (1999).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 A.2d 993, 52 Conn. App. 115, 1999 Conn. App. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wheat-connappct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack