defendant a line inquiry in Connecticut

2021The issues related to the victim’s probationary status on which the court excluded questioning were marginally related, at best, to the issues in the case. ‘‘Every evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Moye, 214 Conn. 89, 95 , 570 A.2d 209 (1990).

2021The issues related to the victim’s probationary status on which the court excluded questioning were marginally related, at best, to the issues in the case. ‘‘Every evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Moye, 214 Conn. 89, 95 , 570 A.2d 209 (1990).

2016The court retains the power to rule on the admissibility of the proffered evidence pursuant to evidentiary standards; hence, the question is evidentiary and not constitutional.... [E]very evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jenkins, 56 Conn.App. 450 , 455, 743 A.2d 660 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 947 , 747 A.2d 523 (2000).

2016The court retains the power to rule on the admissibility of the proffered evidence pursuant to evidentiary standards; hence, the question is evidentiary and not constitutional.... [E]very evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jenkins, 56 Conn.App. 450 , 455, 743 A.2d 660 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 947 , 747 A.2d 523 (2000).

2016The court retains the power to rule on the admissibility of the proffered evidence pursuant to evidentiary standards; hence, the question is evidentiary and not constitutional.... [E]very evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jenkins, 56 Conn.App. 450 , 455, 743 A.2d 660 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 947 , 747 A.2d 523 (2000).

2016The court retains the power to rule on the admissibility of the proffered evidence pursuant to evidentiary standards; hence, the question is evidentiary and not constitutional.... [E]very evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jenkins, 56 Conn.App. 450 , 455, 743 A.2d 660 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 947 , 747 A.2d 523 (2000).

2004Therefore, a claim that the trial court unduly restricted cross-examination generally involves a two-pronged analysis: whether the aforementioned constitutional standard has been met, and, if so, whether the court nonetheless abused its discretion ... in which case, in order to prevail on appeal, the defendant must show that the restrictions imposed upon the cross-examination were clearly prejudicial.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Clark, 260 Conn. 813, 826-27 , 801 A.2d 718 (2002).

2004Therefore, a claim that the trial court unduly restricted cross-examination generally involves a two-pronged analysis: whether the aforementioned constitutional standard has been met, and, if so, whether the court nonetheless abused its discretion ... in which case, in order to prevail on appeal, the defendant must show that the restrictions imposed upon the cross-examination were clearly prejudicial.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Clark, 260 Conn. 813, 826-27 , 801 A.2d 718 (2002).

1992The cases that have examined a defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses confirm the rule that “[ejvery evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Crumble, 24 Conn. App. 57, 66 , 585 A.2d 1245 , cert. denied, 218 Conn. 902 , 588 A.2d 1077 (1991).

1992The cases that have examined a defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses confirm the rule that “[ejvery evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Crumble, 24 Conn. App. 57, 66 , 585 A.2d 1245 , cert. denied, 218 Conn. 902 , 588 A.2d 1077 (1991).

1992The cases that have examined a defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses confirm the rule that “[ejvery evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Crumble, 24 Conn. App. 57, 66 , 585 A.2d 1245 , cert. denied, 218 Conn. 902 , 588 A.2d 1077 (1991).

1992The cases that have examined a defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses confirm the rule that “[ejvery evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Crumble, 24 Conn. App. 57, 66 , 585 A.2d 1245 , cert. denied, 218 Conn. 902 , 588 A.2d 1077 (1991).

2020Both this court and our Supreme Court have stated that, when a defendant is afforded wide latitude in cross-examining a state’s witness as to credibility, claims of sixth amendment violations for restrictions on cross-examination are indicia of ‘‘the defendant [putting] a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional claim.’’ Id.; see also State v. Jordan, 329 Conn. 272 , 287-88 n.14, 186 A.3d 1 (2018) (claim of improper exclusion of evidence of victim’s convictions not constitutional in nature when jury heard testimony that, if credited, would support theory of self-defense); State v. Durdek, 184

2020Both this court and our Supreme Court have stated that, when a defendant is afforded wide latitude in cross-examining a state’s witness as to credibility, claims of sixth amendment violations for restrictions on cross-examination are indicia of ‘‘the defendant [putting] a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional claim.’’ Id.; see also State v. Jordan, 329 Conn. 272 , 287-88 n.14, 186 A.3d 1 (2018) (claim of improper exclusion of evidence of victim’s convictions not constitutional in nature when jury heard testimony that, if credited, would support theory of self-defense); State v. Durdek, 184

2020Both this court and our Supreme Court have stated that, when a defendant is afforded wide latitude in cross-examining a state’s witness as to credibility, claims of sixth amendment violations for restrictions on cross-examination are indicia of ‘‘the defendant [putting] a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional claim.’’ Id.; see also State v. Jordan, 329 Conn. 272 , 287-88 n.14, 186 A.3d 1 (2018) (claim of improper exclusion of evidence of victim’s convictions not constitutional in nature when jury heard testimony that, if credited, would support theory of self-defense); State v. Durdek, 184

2020Every reasonable presumption should be made in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Leconte, 320 Conn. 500 , 510-11, 131 A.3d 1132 (2016). ‘‘Every evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.’’ State v. Vitale, 197 Conn. 396, 403 , 497 A.2d 956 (1985).

2020Every reasonable presumption should be made in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Leconte, 320 Conn. 500 , 510-11, 131 A.3d 1132 (2016). ‘‘Every evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.’’ State v. Vitale, 197 Conn. 396, 403 , 497 A.2d 956 (1985).

2004Every evidentiary ruling that denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. L’Minggio, 71 Conn. App. 656, 661 , 803 A.2d 408 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 902 , 810 A.2d 270 (2002).

2004Every evidentiary ruling that denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. L’Minggio, 71 Conn. App. 656, 661 , 803 A.2d 408 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 902 , 810 A.2d 270 (2002).

2004Every evidentiary ruling that denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. L’Minggio, 71 Conn. App. 656, 661 , 803 A.2d 408 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 902 , 810 A.2d 270 (2002).

2004Every evidentiary ruling that denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. L’Minggio, 71 Conn. App. 656, 661 , 803 A.2d 408 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 902 , 810 A.2d 270 (2002).

2002“The trial court retains the power to rule on the admissibility of evidence pursuant to traditional evidentiary standards.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bridges, 65 Conn. App. 517, 524 , 782 A.2d 1256 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 934 , 785 A.2d 230 (2001).

2002“The trial court retains the power to rule on the admissibility of evidence pursuant to traditional evidentiary standards.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bridges, 65 Conn. App. 517, 524 , 782 A.2d 1256 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 934 , 785 A.2d 230 (2001).

2002“The trial court retains the power to rule on the admissibility of evidence pursuant to traditional evidentiary standards.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bridges, 65 Conn. App. 517, 524 , 782 A.2d 1256 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 934 , 785 A.2d 230 (2001).

2002“The trial court retains the power to rule on the admissibility of evidence pursuant to traditional evidentiary standards.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bridges, 65 Conn. App. 517, 524 , 782 A.2d 1256 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 934 , 785 A.2d 230 (2001).

2000Not every evidentiary ruling that denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is constitutional error.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Menzies, 26 Conn. App. 674, 684-85 , 603 A.2d 419 , cert. denied, 221 Conn. 924 , 608 A.2d 690 (1992).

2000Not every evidentiary ruling that denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is constitutional error.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Menzies, 26 Conn. App. 674, 684-85 , 603 A.2d 419 , cert. denied, 221 Conn. 924 , 608 A.2d 690 (1992).

2000Simply put, the defendant “has put a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional evidentiary ruling.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vilalastra, 207 Conn. 35, 46 , 540 A.2d 42 (1988). “[I]t would trivialize the constitution to transmute a nonconstitutional claim into a constitutional claim simply because of the label placed on it by a party or because of a strained connection between it and a fundamental constitutional right.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dash, 242 Conn. 143, 152 , 698 A.2d 297 (1997).

2000Simply put, the defendant “has put a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional evidentiary ruling.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vilalastra, 207 Conn. 35, 46 , 540 A.2d 42 (1988). “[I]t would trivialize the constitution to transmute a nonconstitutional claim into a constitutional claim simply because of the label placed on it by a party or because of a strained connection between it and a fundamental constitutional right.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dash, 242 Conn. 143, 152 , 698 A.2d 297 (1997).

2000“Relevancy is an evidentiary question and ‘[e]very evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.’ ” State v. Harris, 48 Conn. App. 717 , 726 n.12, 711 A.2d 769 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 922 , 717 A.2d 238 (1998).

2000“Relevancy is an evidentiary question and ‘[e]very evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.’ ” State v. Harris, 48 Conn. App. 717 , 726 n.12, 711 A.2d 769 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 922 , 717 A.2d 238 (1998).

2000Simply put, the defendant “has put a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional evidentiary ruling.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vilalastra, 207 Conn. 35, 46 , 540 A.2d 42 (1988). “[I]t would trivialize the constitution to transmute a nonconstitutional claim into a constitutional claim simply because of the label placed on it by a party or because of a strained connection between it and a fundamental constitutional right.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dash, 242 Conn. 143, 152 , 698 A.2d 297 (1997).

2000Simply put, the defendant “has put a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional evidentiary ruling.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vilalastra, 207 Conn. 35, 46 , 540 A.2d 42 (1988). “[I]t would trivialize the constitution to transmute a nonconstitutional claim into a constitutional claim simply because of the label placed on it by a party or because of a strained connection between it and a fundamental constitutional right.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dash, 242 Conn. 143, 152 , 698 A.2d 297 (1997).

2000Not every evidentiary ruling that denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is constitutional error.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Menzies, 26 Conn. App. 674, 684-85 , 603 A.2d 419 , cert. denied, 221 Conn. 924 , 608 A.2d 690 (1992).

2000Not every evidentiary ruling that denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is constitutional error.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Menzies, 26 Conn. App. 674, 684-85 , 603 A.2d 419 , cert. denied, 221 Conn. 924 , 608 A.2d 690 (1992).

2000“Relevancy is an evidentiary question and ‘[e]very evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.’ ” State v. Harris, 48 Conn. App. 717 , 726 n.12, 711 A.2d 769 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 922 , 717 A.2d 238 (1998).

2000“Relevancy is an evidentiary question and ‘[e]very evidentiary ruling which denies a defendant a line of inquiry to which he thinks he is entitled is not constitutional error.’ ” State v. Harris, 48 Conn. App. 717 , 726 n.12, 711 A.2d 769 , cert. denied, 245 Conn. 922 , 717 A.2d 238 (1998).

1997“Putting a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional claim will no more change its essential character than calling a bull a cow will change its gender.” State v. Gooch, 186 Conn. 17, 18 , 438 A.2d 867 (1982). “[I]n the exercise of his sixth amendment right to compulsory process the accused, as required of the State, must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stange, 212 Conn. 612, 625 , 563 A.2d 681 (1989).

1997“Putting a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional claim will no more change its essential character than calling a bull a cow will change its gender.” State v. Gooch, 186 Conn. 17, 18 , 438 A.2d 867 (1982). “[I]n the exercise of his sixth amendment right to compulsory process the accused, as required of the State, must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stange, 212 Conn. 612, 625 , 563 A.2d 681 (1989).

1997In this instance, the defend ant has put a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Moales, 41 Conn. App. 817, 824 , 678 A.2d 500 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 817 , 682 A.2d 1011 (1996).

1997“Putting a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional claim will no more change its essential character than calling a bull a cow will change its gender.” State v. Gooch, 186 Conn. 17, 18 , 438 A.2d 867 (1982). “[I]n the exercise of his sixth amendment right to compulsory process the accused, as required of the State, must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stange, 212 Conn. 612, 625 , 563 A.2d 681 (1989).

1997“Putting a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional claim will no more change its essential character than calling a bull a cow will change its gender.” State v. Gooch, 186 Conn. 17, 18 , 438 A.2d 867 (1982). “[I]n the exercise of his sixth amendment right to compulsory process the accused, as required of the State, must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stange, 212 Conn. 612, 625 , 563 A.2d 681 (1989).

1997In this instance, the defend ant has put a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Moales, 41 Conn. App. 817, 824 , 678 A.2d 500 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 817 , 682 A.2d 1011 (1996).

1997In this instance, the defend ant has put a constitutional tag on a nonconstitutional claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Moales, 41 Conn. App. 817, 824 , 678 A.2d 500 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 817 , 682 A.2d 1011 (1996).

1994“The defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him is not absolute, but must bow to other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mastropetre, 175 Conn. 512, 521 , 400 A.2d 276 (1978); State v. Vitale, 197 Conn. 396, 401 , 497 A.2d 956 (1985).

1994“The defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him is not absolute, but must bow to other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mastropetre, 175 Conn. 512, 521 , 400 A.2d 276 (1978); State v. Vitale, 197 Conn. 396, 401 , 497 A.2d 956 (1985).