State v. Hazard

<p>*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. DENNIS G. HAZARD (AC 43384) DiPentima, C. J., and Moll and Harper, Js.* Syllabus Convicted of the crime of robbery in the first degree, the defendant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator and that he proved his affirmative defense of inoperability of the weapon used during the robbery. The perpetrator had pointed a gun at the employee on duty at a storage facility, took cash from her and then fled. Police officers searching the nearby area encountered a vehicle that came toward them but then reversed direction and left the area before crashing in a yard. The defendant fled from the crash scene before the police arrived and found cash, a gun and other items in the vehicle, which had been lent to the defendant by his girlfriend hours before the robbery. The storage facility employee described to the police what the defendant was wearing but was unable to identify him when the police brought her to a nearby store where he was arrested shortly after the robbery for a one-on-one identification. Held: 1. There was sufficient evidence from which the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant was the person who robbed the storage facility; the defendant owned and wore clothing and items similar to that worn by the perpetrator, some of which the police found in bushes near the crime scene and which contained the defendant’s DNA, video surveil- lance showed an individual driving to a bush in a vehicle matching that which was owned by the defendant’s girlfriend, exiting the vehicle and retreating behind the bush before returning to the vehicle wearing cloth- ing that matched that of the defendant at the time of his arrest, and the police found in the vehicle, which belonged to the defendant’s girlfriend, a gun and money that approximated ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4800110/state-v-hazard/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on, it is strongly advised to avoid State v. Hazard in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from State v. Hazard. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
State v. Hazard is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.
The above review and comments against State v. Hazard were submitted by user(s) and have been published as-is. does not edit, alter or remove content published by it’s users. There’s no amount of money a business can pay to manipulate their reviews or complaints and will NOT entertain any request to remove the review on State v. Hazard at any cost whatsoever.