TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Almeda

State of Connecticut v. John A. Almeda, Jr.

State v. Almeda, 493 A.2d 890 (Conn. 1985)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Connecticut · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 18, 1985
Docket
No. 12157
Judges
Callahan, Dannehy
Citations
493 A.2d 890196 Conn. 5071985 Conn. LEXIS 786
Cited by 8 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court — Dannehy

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Dannehy, J.

This is the second appeal of this case to this court. The material facts are stated in State v. Almeda, 189 Conn. 303 , 455 A.2d 1326 (1983). On the last appeal we remanded the case for further articulation because the trial court’s findings on the issue of actual juror bias were incomplete. Id., 314 . The scope of the remand required that the trial court make an explicit finding of the ultimate fact to be proved, actual bias on the part of a juror.

The trial court, Hendel, J., made findings of fact after remand similar to those found prior to the first appeal. On the basis of those facts, the trial court, in its further articulation, found actual bias upon the part of a juror. On remand, the trial court abandoned any reliance on Mares v. State, 83 N.M. 225 , 490 P.2d 667 *509 (1971), and applied the correct legal standard in finding actual bias on the part of a juror. State v. Almeda, supra, 312-13 .

There is no error. 1

In this opinion Healey, Shea and Aspell, Js., concurred.

On the first appeal, we decided that “[i]f a finding of actual bias appears on the record, there is no error.” State v. Almeda,, 189 Conn. 303, 314 , 455 A.2d 1326 (1983). The effect of our decision today is to uphold the trial court’s order of a new trial.

Dissent — Callahan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Callahan, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I see nothing in the record which could reasonably result in a finding of actual bias on the part of the juror by the trial judge.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →
1989: 11997: 11998: 12000: 12005: 12006: 22009: 119892026peak 2006 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Myers698 A.2d 823 (Conn. 1997)
  2. State v. Myers711 A.2d 704 (Conn. 1998)
  3. State v. Coward972 A.2d 691 (Conn. 2009)
  4. State v. Almeda560 A.2d 389 (Conn. 1989)
  5. State v. Greene874 A.2d 750 (Conn. 2005)
  6. State v. Fuller744 A.2d 931 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000)

Most recent

  1. State v. Coward972 A.2d 691 (Conn. 2009)
  2. State v. Jones902 A.2d 17 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)
  3. State v. Flowers898 A.2d 789 (Conn. 2006)
  4. State v. Greene874 A.2d 750 (Conn. 2005)
  5. State v. Fuller744 A.2d 931 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000)
  6. State v. Myers711 A.2d 704 (Conn. 1998)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Almeda, 455 A.2d 1326 (Conn. 1983) 55
Mares v. State, 490 P.2d 667 (N.M. 1971) 25

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list