State v. Wheat

725 A.2d 993, 52 Conn. App. 115, 1999 Conn. App. LEXIS 69
Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided March 2, 1999·No. AC 18116·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[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

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

725 A.2d 993 (State v. Wheat) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Artis
47 A.3d 419 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2012)
State v. Wheat
732 A.2d 777 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1999)