harmful error in Connecticut

2007Harmful error occurs in a civil *130 action when the ruling would likely affect the result.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Puchalski v. Mathura, 82 Conn. App. 272, 275 , 843 A.2d 685 (2004). 6 In any event, it is clear from the record that the court did not use this evidence to demean the respondent’s character by noting that she had been arrested again on another charge.

2007Harmful error occurs in a civil *130 action when the ruling would likely affect the result.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Puchalski v. Mathura, 82 Conn. App. 272, 275 , 843 A.2d 685 (2004). 6 In any event, it is clear from the record that the court did not use this evidence to demean the respondent’s character by noting that she had been arrested again on another charge.

2017The plaintiffs petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 173 Conn.App. 321 , 164 A.3d 36 (2017), is granted, limited to the following question: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiff failed to prove that the trial court committed harmful error when it precluded the plaintiffs fact witness, Rick Cianfaglione, from testifying as to his observations and perceptions, not permitting the plaintiffs counsel to make an offer of proof, and disregarding Ciafaglione's deposition transcript?" McDONALD and D'AURIA, Js., did not participate in the consideration of

2017The plaintiffs petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 173 Conn.App. 321 , 164 A.3d 36 (2017), is granted, limited to the following question: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiff failed to prove that the trial court committed harmful error when it precluded the plaintiffs fact witness, Rick Cianfaglione, from testifying as to his observations and perceptions, not permitting the plaintiffs counsel to make an offer of proof, and disregarding Ciafaglione's deposition transcript?" McDONALD and D'AURIA, Js., did not participate in the consideration of

1989Harmful error requires a finding that the error was likely to affect the result.” (Citation omitted.) Darling v. Waterford, 7 Conn. App. 485, 488 , 508 A.2d 839 (1986).

1989Harmful error requires a finding that the error was likely to affect the result.” (Citation omitted.) Darling v. Waterford, 7 Conn. App. 485, 488 , 508 A.2d 839 (1986).

2025It is the plaintiff’s burden to show harmful error.’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 173 Conn. App. 321, 347 , 164 A.3d 36 (2017), appeal dismissed, 330 Conn. 342 , 193 A.3d 1208 (2018); see also George v. Ericson, 250 Conn. 312, 327 , 736 A.2d 889 (1999); Puchalski v. Mathura, 82 Conn. App. 272 , 275–76, 843 A.2d 685 (2004); see generally Mercer v. Champion, 139 Conn. App. 216 , 228–29, 55 A.3d 772 (2012).

2025It is the plaintiff’s burden to show harmful error.’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 173 Conn. App. 321, 347 , 164 A.3d 36 (2017), appeal dismissed, 330 Conn. 342 , 193 A.3d 1208 (2018); see also George v. Ericson, 250 Conn. 312, 327 , 736 A.2d 889 (1999); Puchalski v. Mathura, 82 Conn. App. 272 , 275–76, 843 A.2d 685 (2004); see generally Mercer v. Champion, 139 Conn. App. 216 , 228–29, 55 A.3d 772 (2012).

2020It is the [petitioner’s] burden to show harmful error.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 173 Conn. App. 321, 347 , 164 A.3d 36 (2017), appeal dismissed, 330 Conn. 342 , 193 A.3d 1208 (2018). ‘‘In those instances wherein a party claims that the trial court improperly excluded testi- mony, we undertake a review of the relationship of the excluded evidence to the central issues in the case and whether that evidence would have been merely cumulative of admitted testimony.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Doyle v. Kamm, 133 Conn. App.

2020It is the [petitioner’s] burden to show harmful error.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc., 173 Conn. App. 321, 347 , 164 A.3d 36 (2017), appeal dismissed, 330 Conn. 342 , 193 A.3d 1208 (2018). ‘‘In those instances wherein a party claims that the trial court improperly excluded testi- mony, we undertake a review of the relationship of the excluded evidence to the central issues in the case and whether that evidence would have been merely cumulative of admitted testimony.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Doyle v. Kamm, 133 Conn. App.

2018We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiff failed to prove that the trial court committed harmful error when it precluded the plaintiff's fact witness, Rick Cianfaglione, from testifying as to his observations and perceptions, not permitting the plaintiff's counsel to make an offer of proof, and disregarding Cianfaglione's deposition transcript?" Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc. , 326 Conn. 923 , 169 A.3d 234 (2017).

2018We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiff failed to prove that the trial court committed harmful error when it precluded the plaintiff's fact witness, Rick Cianfaglione, from testifying as to his observations and perceptions, not permitting the plaintiff's counsel to make an offer of proof, and disregarding Cianfaglione's deposition transcript?" Suntech of Connecticut, Inc. v. Lawrence Brunoli, Inc. , 326 Conn. 923 , 169 A.3d 234 (2017).

2010Ed. 2d 694 (1966), and if so, was this harmful error requiring a new trial?” State v. Mitchell, 289 Conn. 904, 904-905 , 957 A.2d 874 (2008). 2 “[Although] the victim testified that she was attacked by four people, only three suspects were apprehended in the vehicle.” State v. Mitchell, supra, 108 Conn. App. 392 n.l. 3 The trial court charged the jury as follows: “In any criminal trial, it is permissible for the state to show that conduct or statements made by a defendant after the time of the alleged offense, which may fairly have been influenced by the criminal act, that is, the conduct or s

2010Ed. 2d 694 (1966), and if so, was this harmful error requiring a new trial?” State v. Mitchell, 289 Conn. 904, 904-905 , 957 A.2d 874 (2008). 2 “[Although] the victim testified that she was attacked by four people, only three suspects were apprehended in the vehicle.” State v. Mitchell, supra, 108 Conn. App. 392 n.l. 3 The trial court charged the jury as follows: “In any criminal trial, it is permissible for the state to show that conduct or statements made by a defendant after the time of the alleged offense, which may fairly have been influenced by the criminal act, that is, the conduct or s

2009For a plaintiff to prevail on a claim alleging a constructive discharge under Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471, 480 , 427 A.2d 385 (1980), she must prove not only constructive discharge, but also causation: that is, that the discharge *75 occurred for a reason violating public policy. 10 Accordingly, the plaintiffs argument—that the court committed harmful error by including within the elements of retaliation, an entirely separate cause of action and that such cause of action itself was proved—must fail.

2009For a plaintiff to prevail on a claim alleging a constructive discharge under Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471, 480 , 427 A.2d 385 (1980), she must prove not only constructive discharge, but also causation: that is, that the discharge *75 occurred for a reason violating public policy. 10 Accordingly, the plaintiffs argument—that the court committed harmful error by including within the elements of retaliation, an entirely separate cause of action and that such cause of action itself was proved—must fail.

2008Cf., e.g., State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 456 , 832 A.2d 626 (2003) (concluding that, although admission of certain testimony was abuse of discretion, it was harmless error because, inter alia, state's attorney did not emphasize or rely upon testimony during closing argument and there was significant other evidence of defendant's guilt); State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 297 , 746 A.2d 150 ("[t]his court has held in a number of cases that when there is independent overwhelming evidence of guilt, a constitutional error would be rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" [internal quotation

2008Cf., e.g., State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 456 , 832 A.2d 626 (2003) (concluding that, although admission of certain testimony was abuse of discretion, it was harmless error because, inter alia, state's attorney did not emphasize or rely upon testimony during closing argument and there was significant other evidence of defendant's guilt); State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 297 , 746 A.2d 150 ("[t]his court has held in a number of cases that when there is independent overwhelming evidence of guilt, a constitutional error would be rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" [internal quotation

2008Cf., e.g., State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 456 , 832 A.2d 626 (2003) (concluding that, although admission of certain testimony was abuse of discretion, it was harmless error because, inter alia, state's attorney did not emphasize or rely upon testimony during closing argument and there was significant other evidence of defendant's guilt); State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 297 , 746 A.2d 150 ("[t]his court has held in a number of cases that when there is independent overwhelming evidence of guilt, a constitutional error would be rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" [internal quotation

2008Cf., e.g., State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 456 , 832 A.2d 626 (2003) (concluding that, although admission of certain testimony was abuse of discretion, it was harmless error because, inter alia, state's attorney did not emphasize or rely upon testimony during closing argument and there was significant other evidence of defendant's guilt); State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 297 , 746 A.2d 150 ("[t]his court has held in a number of cases that when there is independent overwhelming evidence of guilt, a constitutional error would be rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" [internal quotation

2008The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 108 Conn.App. 388 , 948 A.2d 335 (2008), is granted, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant's statement was admitted in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and if so, was this harmful error requiring a new trial?" The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18219.

2008The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 108 Conn.App. 388 , 948 A.2d 335 (2008), is granted, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant's statement was admitted in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and if so, was this harmful error requiring a new trial?" The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18219.

2008We conclude that this court’s decision today in State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 , 949 A.2d 1092 (2008), compels the conclusion that the defendant’s conviction of kidnapping in the *613 first degree cannot stand.

2008We conclude that this court’s decision today in State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 , 949 A.2d 1092 (2008), compels the conclusion that the defendant’s conviction of kidnapping in the *613 first degree cannot stand.

2008The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 108 Conn.App. 388 , 948 A.2d 335 (2008), is granted, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant's statement was admitted in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and if so, was this harmful error requiring a new trial?" The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18219.

2008The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 108 Conn.App. 388 , 948 A.2d 335 (2008), is granted, limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant's statement was admitted in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and if so, was this harmful error requiring a new trial?" The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18219.

2008Cf., e.g., State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 456 , 832 A.2d 626 (2003) (concluding that, although admission of certain testimony was abuse of discretion, it was harmless error because, inter alia, state's attorney did not emphasize or rely upon testimony during closing argument and there was significant other evidence of defendant's guilt); State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 297 , 746 A.2d 150 ("[t]his court has held in a number of cases that when there is independent overwhelming evidence of guilt, a constitutional error would be rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" [internal quotation

2008Cf., e.g., State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 456 , 832 A.2d 626 (2003) (concluding that, although admission of certain testimony was abuse of discretion, it was harmless error because, inter alia, state’s attorney did not emphasize or rely upon testimony during closing argument and there was significant other evidence of defendant’s guilt); State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 297 , 746 A.2d 150 (“[t]his court has held in a number of cases that when there is independent overwhelming evidence of guilt, a constitutional error would be rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” [internal quotation

2008Cf., e.g., State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 456 , 832 A.2d 626 (2003) (concluding that, although admission of certain testimony was abuse of discretion, it was harmless error because, inter alia, state's attorney did not emphasize or rely upon testimony during closing argument and there was significant other evidence of defendant's guilt); State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 297 , 746 A.2d 150 ("[t]his court has held in a number of cases that when there is independent overwhelming evidence of guilt, a constitutional error would be rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" [internal quotation

2008Cf., e.g., State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 456 , 832 A.2d 626 (2003) (concluding that, although admission of certain testimony was abuse of discretion, it was harmless error because, inter alia, state’s attorney did not emphasize or rely upon testimony during closing argument and there was significant other evidence of defendant’s guilt); State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 297 , 746 A.2d 150 (“[t]his court has held in a number of cases that when there is independent overwhelming evidence of guilt, a constitutional error would be rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” [internal quotation

2008Cf., e.g., State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 456 , 832 A.2d 626 (2003) (concluding that, although admission of certain testimony was abuse of discretion, it was harmless error because, inter alia, state's attorney did not emphasize or rely upon testimony during closing argument and there was significant other evidence of defendant's guilt); State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 297 , 746 A.2d 150 ("[t]his court has held in a number of cases that when there is independent overwhelming evidence of guilt, a constitutional error would be rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" [internal quotation

2008Cf., e.g., State v. Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 456 , 832 A.2d 626 (2003) (concluding that, although admission of certain testimony was abuse of discretion, it was harmless error because, inter alia, state’s attorney did not emphasize or rely upon testimony during closing argument and there was significant other evidence of defendant’s guilt); State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274, 297 , 746 A.2d 150 (“[t]his court has held in a number of cases that when there is independent overwhelming evidence of guilt, a constitutional error would be rendered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” [internal quotation

2005On appeal to the Appellate Court, that court agreed with the defendant that the trial court improperly had permitted two witnesses to testify regarding the details of complaints made by the victim in violation of State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 304 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996). 5 Without explicitly engaging in a harmful error analysis, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of conviction on the basis of this evidentiary impropriety and remanded the case for a new trial.

2005On appeal to the Appellate Court, that court agreed with the defendant that the trial court improperly had permitted two witnesses to testify regarding the details of complaints made by the victim in violation of State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 304 , 677 A.2d 917 (1996). 5 Without explicitly engaging in a harmful error analysis, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of conviction on the basis of this evidentiary impropriety and remanded the case for a new trial.

2003State v. Thompson, 69 Conn. App. 299, 302 , 797 A.2d 539 (2002). 5 Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

2003State v. Thompson, 69 Conn. App. 299, 302 , 797 A.2d 539 (2002). 5 Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

2000Id., 402-403 .

1994Although this court authorized missing witness instructions generally in Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., 147 Conn. 672 , 165 A.2d 598 (1960), I believe that the giving of such an instruction under the circumstances of this case constituted reversible error.

1994Although this court authorized missing witness instructions generally in Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., 147 Conn. 672 , 165 A.2d 598 (1960), I believe that the giving of such an instruction under the circumstances of this case constituted reversible error.

1989In State v. Anderson, 152 Conn. 196 , 205 A.2d 488 (1964), also a child abuse case, this court found harmful error in the failure of the trial court to grant “in substance” a request to charge that was identical to that proposed by the defendant in this case, even though the instructions on credibility were otherwise adequate.

1989In State v. Anderson, 152 Conn. 196 , 205 A.2d 488 (1964), also a child abuse case, this court found harmful error in the failure of the trial court to grant “in substance” a request to charge that was identical to that proposed by the defendant in this case, even though the instructions on credibility were otherwise adequate.