purely evidentiary claim in Connecticut

2017The defendant must therefore satisfy the requirements of State v. Golding , supra, 213 Conn. at 239 -40 , 567 A.2d 823 , in order to prevail on this argument.

2017The defendant must therefore satisfy the requirements of State v. Golding , supra, 213 Conn. at 239 -40 , 567 A.2d 823 , in order to prevail on this argument.

2007We previously have stated that the admissibility of evidence is a matter of state law and unless there is a resultant denial of fundamental fairness or the denial of a specific constitutional right, no constitutional issue is involved.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gerald W., 103 Conn. App. 784, 798 , 931 A.2d 383 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 933 , 935 A.2d 152 (2007).

2007We previously have stated that the admissibility of evidence is a matter of state law and unless there is a resultant denial of fundamental fairness or the denial of a specific constitutional right, no constitutional issue is involved.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gerald W., 103 Conn. App. 784, 798 , 931 A.2d 383 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 933 , 935 A.2d 152 (2007).

2007We previously have stated that the admissibility of evidence is a matter of state law and unless there is a resultant denial of fundamental fairness or the denial of a specific constitutional right, no constitutional issue is involved.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gerald W., 103 Conn. App. 784, 798 , 931 A.2d 383 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 933 , 935 A.2d 152 (2007).

2007We previously have stated that the admissibility of evidence is a matter of state law and unless there is a resultant denial of fundamental fairness or the denial of a specific constitutional right, no constitutional issue is involved.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gerald W., 103 Conn. App. 784, 798 , 931 A.2d 383 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 933 , 935 A.2d 152 (2007).

2025It is well established that, as a general matter, a party ‘‘cannot raise a constitutional claim by attaching a con- stitutional label to a purely evidentiary claim or by that doctrine.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 540 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024).

2020Simply they didn’t find him at the apartment and there was further investigation to follow.’’ 5 In support of his argument, the defendant cites to State v. Cortes, 276 Conn. 241, 256 , 885 A.2d 153 (2005), for the proposition that the end of an emotionally charged sexual relationship ‘‘generates greater bias and motive to fabricate accusations than an argument between friends or acquain- tances.’’ The defendant, however, failed to present evidence that the end of his relationship with the victim was emotionally charged and, further, failed to present evidence that the victim’s relationship wit

2020Simply they didn’t find him at the apartment and there was further investigation to follow.’’ 5 In support of his argument, the defendant cites to State v. Cortes, 276 Conn. 241, 256 , 885 A.2d 153 (2005), for the proposition that the end of an emotionally charged sexual relationship ‘‘generates greater bias and motive to fabricate accusations than an argument between friends or acquain- tances.’’ The defendant, however, failed to present evidence that the end of his relationship with the victim was emotionally charged and, further, failed to present evidence that the victim’s relationship wit

2017The defendant, however, does not bring a purely evidentiary claim, but claims that the exclusion of the evidence deprived him of his right to confrontation and his right to present a defense." (Citation omitted.) State v. Adorno , 121 Conn. App. 534 , 548 n.4, 996 A.2d 746 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 929 , 998 A.2d 1196 (2010).

2017The defendant, however, does not bring a purely evidentiary claim, but claims that the exclusion of the evidence deprived him of his right to confrontation and his right to present a defense." (Citation omitted.) State v. Adorno , 121 Conn. App. 534 , 548 n.4, 996 A.2d 746 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 929 , 998 A.2d 1196 (2010).

2017The defendant, however, does not bring a purely evidentiary claim, but claims that the exclusion of the evidence deprived him of his right to confrontation and his right to present a defense." (Citation omitted.) State v. Adorno , 121 Conn. App. 534 , 548 n.4, 996 A.2d 746 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 929 , 998 A.2d 1196 (2010).

2017The defendant, however, does not bring a purely evidentiary claim, but claims that the exclusion of the evidence deprived him of his right to confrontation and his right to present a defense." (Citation omitted.) State v. Adorno , 121 Conn. App. 534 , 548 n.4, 996 A.2d 746 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 929 , 998 A.2d 1196 (2010).

2014See, e.g., State v. Cromety, 102 Conn. App. 425, 431 , 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007). 11 In State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239–40, this court held that ‘‘a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magni- tude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitu- tional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4

2014See, e.g., State v. Cromety, 102 Conn. App. 425, 431 , 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007). 11 In State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239–40, this court held that ‘‘a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magni- tude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitu- tional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4

2012This court has held that “[t]he defendant can not raise a constitutional claim by attaching a constitutional label to a purely evidentiary claim .... [Ojnce identified, unpreserved evidentiary claims masquerading as constitutional claims will be summarily dismissed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Robinson, 129 Conn. App. 331, 336-37 , 19 A.3d 259 (2011).

2012This court has held that “[t]he defendant can not raise a constitutional claim by attaching a constitutional label to a purely evidentiary claim .... [Ojnce identified, unpreserved evidentiary claims masquerading as constitutional claims will be summarily dismissed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Robinson, 129 Conn. App. 331, 336-37 , 19 A.3d 259 (2011).

2012In re Lukas K., 120 Conn. App. 465, 472 , 992 A.2d 1142 (2010), aff'd, 300 Conn. 463 , 14 A.3d 990 (2011); see also State v. Claudio C., 125 Conn. App. 588, 598 , 11 A.3d 1086 (2010) (“[t]he defendant can not raise a constitutional claim by attaching a constitutional label to a purely evidentiary claim or by asserting merely that a strained connection exists between the evidentiary claim and a fundamental constitutional right” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 910 , 12 A.3d 1005 (2011).

2012In re Lukas K., 120 Conn. App. 465, 472 , 992 A.2d 1142 (2010), aff'd, 300 Conn. 463 , 14 A.3d 990 (2011); see also State v. Claudio C., 125 Conn. App. 588, 598 , 11 A.3d 1086 (2010) (“[t]he defendant can not raise a constitutional claim by attaching a constitutional label to a purely evidentiary claim or by asserting merely that a strained connection exists between the evidentiary claim and a fundamental constitutional right” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 910 , 12 A.3d 1005 (2011).

2012In re Lukas K., 120 Conn. App. 465, 472 , 992 A.2d 1142 (2010), aff'd, 300 Conn. 463 , 14 A.3d 990 (2011); see also State v. Claudio C., 125 Conn. App. 588, 598 , 11 A.3d 1086 (2010) (“[t]he defendant can not raise a constitutional claim by attaching a constitutional label to a purely evidentiary claim or by asserting merely that a strained connection exists between the evidentiary claim and a fundamental constitutional right” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 910 , 12 A.3d 1005 (2011).

2012In re Lukas K., 120 Conn. App. 465, 472 , 992 A.2d 1142 (2010), aff'd, 300 Conn. 463 , 14 A.3d 990 (2011); see also State v. Claudio C., 125 Conn. App. 588, 598 , 11 A.3d 1086 (2010) (“[t]he defendant can not raise a constitutional claim by attaching a constitutional label to a purely evidentiary claim or by asserting merely that a strained connection exists between the evidentiary claim and a fundamental constitutional right” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 910 , 12 A.3d 1005 (2011).

2010“The defendant can not raise a constitutional claim by attaching a constitutional label to a purely evidentiary claim or by asserting merely that a strained connection exists between the evidentiary claim and a fundamental constitutional right. . . . [0]nce identified, unpreserved evidentiary claims masquerading as constitutional claims will be summarily dismissed.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. *599 Stepney, supra, 94 Conn. App. 79 .

2008“Generally, the admissibility of evidence is a matter of state law and unless there is a resultant denial of fundamental fairness or the denial of a specific constitutional right, no constitutional issue is involved.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vilalastra, 207 Conn. 35, 46 , 540 A.2d 42 (1988).

2008“Generally, the admissibility of evidence is a matter of state law and unless there is a resultant denial of fundamental fairness or the denial of a specific constitutional right, no constitutional issue is involved.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vilalastra, 207 Conn. 35, 46 , 540 A.2d 42 (1988).

2008Thus, [o]nce identified, unpreserved evidentiary claims *88 masquerading as constitutional claims will be summarily dismissed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gilbert I., 106 Conn. App. 793, 796 , 944 A.2d 353 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 913 , 950 A.2d 1289 (2008).

2008Thus, [o]nce identified, unpreserved evidentiary claims *88 masquerading as constitutional claims will be summarily dismissed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gilbert I., 106 Conn. App. 793, 796 , 944 A.2d 353 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 913 , 950 A.2d 1289 (2008).

2008Thus, [o]nce identified, unpreserved evidentiary claims *88 masquerading as constitutional claims will be summarily dismissed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gilbert I., 106 Conn. App. 793, 796 , 944 A.2d 353 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 913 , 950 A.2d 1289 (2008).

2008Thus, [o]nce identified, unpreserved evidentiary claims *88 masquerading as constitutional claims will be summarily dismissed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gilbert I., 106 Conn. App. 793, 796 , 944 A.2d 353 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 913 , 950 A.2d 1289 (2008).

2007Accordingly, “[t]he defendant can not raise a constitutional claim by attaching a constitutional label to a purely evidentiary claim or by asserting merely that a strained connection exists between the evidentiary claim and a fundamental constitutional right.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. D’Haity, 99 Conn. App. 375, 394 , 914 A.2d 570 , cert. denied, 282 Conn. 912 , 924 A.2d 137 (2007).

2007Accordingly, “[t]he defendant can not raise a constitutional claim by attaching a constitutional label to a purely evidentiary claim or by asserting merely that a strained connection exists between the evidentiary claim and a fundamental constitutional right.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. D’Haity, 99 Conn. App. 375, 394 , 914 A.2d 570 , cert. denied, 282 Conn. 912 , 924 A.2d 137 (2007).