TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Johnson

State of Connecticut v. Everton Johnson

State v. Johnson, 567 A.2d 850 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Connecticut Appellate Court · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 22, 1989
Docket
No. 7917
Citations
567 A.2d 85020 Conn. App. 8081989 Conn. App. LEXIS 365

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction of possession of four ounces or more of marihuana, in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (b). He claims that the trial court erred (1) in admitting certain testimony by a police officer that was inadmissible expert opinion testimony, (2) in denying *809 his motion for a mistrial, (3) in permitting certain testimony by a police officer that deprived him of a fair trial, and (4) in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence. We have fully reviewed his claims, and find no error.

In his first claim of error, the defendant presents eleven instances of what he argues was inadmissible expert opinion testimony. Ten of these instances were elicited by him on cross-examination, without objections or motions to strike. Thus, any error or prejudice to him was invited by him. The eleventh was elicited by the state on redirect examination. It does not merit review because the defendant did not object on the ground now asserted on appeal. The second claim of error, namely, the denial of his motion for a mistrial, is without merit. Although the challenged testimony was improper, the court gave a thoroughly adequate curative charge to the jury and was well within its discretion in failing to declare a mistrial. In his third claim of error, the defendant presents ten instances of police testimony that he claims deprived him of a fair trial. Eight of these instances occurred during the defendant’s cross-examination, and no objections or motions to strike were interposed by the defendant. One of the ten occurred on direct examination by the state. The defendant did not object to it, and we perceive nothing objectionable about it. The tenth occurred during redirect examination, and the defendant objected on grounds different from those now asserted on appeal. With regard to the fourth claim of error, we have examined the evidence and conclude that it is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

There is no error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1990: 119902026peak 1990 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Kwaak572 A.2d 1015 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)

Most recent

  1. State v. Kwaak572 A.2d 1015 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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