STATE v. WHEAT (1999)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

STATE of Connecticut v. Clayton E. WHEAT.

No. 18116.

Decided: March 02, 1999

Before LAVERY, SPEAR and DALY, JJ.

Allan F. Friedman, Stamford, for the appellant (defendant). Harry Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Eugene J. Callahan, state's attorney, and Mitchell Rubin, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

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.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network