Opinion · Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Jimenez
State v. Jimenez, 225 Conn. 916 (Conn. 1993)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Connecticut
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut
- Date
- 1993-03-25
- Topic
- general
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 406 (AC 11272), is granted, limited to the following issue: “In a trial for assault in the first degree where the defense presented evidence that the defendant’s use of deadly physical force was based on his reasonable belief that the victim was about to use deadly physical force against him, and the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that notwithstanding the provisions of General Statutes § 53a-19 (a), a claim of self-defense *917would be defeated if the defendant was the first person to use physical force, did the Appellate Court correctly conclude it was not reasonably possible for the jury to have been misled?” Decided March 25, 1993 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14737. Joseph G. Bruckmann, public defender, in support of the petition. Frederick W.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Jimenez. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 1 opinion
The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 30 Conn. App. 406 (AC 11272), is granted, limited to the following issue:
“In a trial for assault in the first degree where the defense presented evidence that the defendant’s use of deadly physical force was based on his reasonable belief that the victim was about to use deadly physical force against him, and the trial court erroneously instructed the jury that notwithstanding the provisions of General Statutes § 53a-19 (a), a claim of self-defenseDecided March 25, 1993 The Supreme Court docket number is SC 14737. Joseph G. Bruckmann, public defender, in support of the petition. Frederick W. Fawcett, assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.*917 would be defeated if the defendant was the first person to use physical force, did the Appellate Court correctly conclude it was not reasonably possible for the jury to have been misled?”