Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
23 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences2000“Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Outlaw, supra, 216 Conn. 505 , quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L. 2000“Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Outlaw, supra, 216 Conn. 505 , quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L. | 2 | 10 |
Joseph Anthony Padilla v. Cal A. Terhunegreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., Padilla v. Terhune, 309 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 818, 821-22 , 110 S. Ct. 3139 , 111 L. 1996See, e.g., Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 818, 821-22 , 110 S. Ct. 3139 , 111 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johngreen2 sentences1990We begin our analysis by holding that adoptive admissions are a firmly rooted hearsay exception and thus if the trial court did find that the informant’s statements were adoptive admissions, the statements were properly admitted. “ ‘Where hearsay accusations are sought to be introduced as evidence against a defendant in a criminal proceeding on grounds that the hearsay was “adopted” by defendant as an admission of his guilt, the trial court must first determine that the asserted adoptive admission be manifested by conduct or statements which are unequivocal, positive, and definite in nature, c 1990We begin our analysis by holding that adoptive admissions are a firmly rooted hearsay exception and thus if the trial court did find that the informant’s statements were adoptive admissions, the statements were properly admitted. “ ‘Where hearsay accusations are sought to be introduced as evidence against a defendant in a criminal proceeding on grounds that the hearsay was “adopted” by defendant as an admission of his guilt, the trial court must first determine that the asserted adoptive admission be manifested by conduct or statements which are unequivocal, positive, and definite in nature, c | 1 | 1 |
DuFon v. Californiagreen1 sentence1990We begin our analysis by holding that adoptive admissions are a firmly rooted hearsay exception and thus if the trial court did find that the informant’s statements were adoptive admissions, the statements were properly admitted. “ ‘Where hearsay accusations are sought to be introduced as evidence against a defendant in a criminal proceeding on grounds that the hearsay was “adopted” by defendant as an admission of his guilt, the trial court must first determine that the asserted adoptive admission be manifested by conduct or statements which are unequivocal, positive, and definite in nature, c | 1 | 1 |
Medics Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Newmangreen1 sentence1990We begin our analysis by holding that adoptive admissions are a firmly rooted hearsay exception and thus if the trial court did find that the informant’s statements were adoptive admissions, the statements were properly admitted. “ ‘Where hearsay accusations are sought to be introduced as evidence against a defendant in a criminal proceeding on grounds that the hearsay was “adopted” by defendant as an admission of his guilt, the trial court must first determine that the asserted adoptive admission be manifested by conduct or statements which are unequivocal, positive, and definite in nature, c | 1 | 1 |
May v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.green1 sentence1990We begin our analysis by holding that adoptive admissions are a firmly rooted hearsay exception and thus if the trial court did find that the informant’s statements were adoptive admissions, the statements were properly admitted. “ ‘Where hearsay accusations are sought to be introduced as evidence against a defendant in a criminal proceeding on grounds that the hearsay was “adopted” by defendant as an admission of his guilt, the trial court must first determine that the asserted adoptive admission be manifested by conduct or statements which are unequivocal, positive, and definite in nature, c | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2026Ed. 2d 597 (1980), overruled in part by Crawford v. Washington, [supra, 541 U.S. 36 ] all such statements were admissible if they had ‘adequate indicia of reliability . . . [which] can be inferred . . . where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception . . . [or pursuant to] a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.’ . . . 2025Ed. 2d 177 (2004), all such statements were admissible if they had ‘‘adequate indicia of reliability . . . [which] can be inferred . . . where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception . . . [or pursuant to] a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthi- ness.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 66 . | 3 | 2010–2026 |
Lilly v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2005Traditionally, for purposes of the confrontation clause, all hearsay statements of unavailable out-of-court declarants were admissible if the statements bore adequate indicia of reliability, i.e., “(1) the evidence [fell] within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or (2) it contain [ed] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness such that adversarial testing would be expected to add little, if anything, to the statements’ reliability.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 124 , 119 S. Ct. 1887 , 144 L. 2005Traditionally, for purposes of the confrontation clause, all hearsay statements of unavailable out-of-court declarants were admissible if the statements bore adequate indicia of reliability, i.e., “(1) the evidence [fell] within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or (2) it contain [ed] particularized guarantees of trustworthiness such that adversarial testing would be expected to add little, if anything, to the statements’ reliability.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 124 , 119 S. Ct. 1887 , 144 L. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Schiappa
green
2 sentences2002Although “[u]npreserved hearsay claims do not automatically invoke constitutional rights to confrontation;” (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Dixon, 62 Conn. App. 643, 649 , 772 A.2d 166 (2001); “[e]vidence that does not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception ... is inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 159 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. 2002Although “[u]npreserved hearsay claims do not automatically invoke constitutional rights to confrontation;” (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Dixon, 62 Conn. App. 643, 649 , 772 A.2d 166 (2001); “[e]vidence that does not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception ... is inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 159 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Stephen v. United States
green
2 sentences2003Ohio v. Roberts, [supra, 66 ].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 158-59 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. 2002Although “[u]npreserved hearsay claims do not automatically invoke constitutional rights to confrontation;” (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Dixon, 62 Conn. App. 643, 649 , 772 A.2d 166 (2001); “[e]vidence that does not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception ... is inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 159 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Rentz v. Davis, Dir. Gen'l.
green
2 sentences2003Ohio v. Roberts, [supra, 66 ].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 158-59 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. 2002Although “[u]npreserved hearsay claims do not automatically invoke constitutional rights to confrontation;” (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Dixon, 62 Conn. App. 643, 649 , 772 A.2d 166 (2001); “[e]vidence that does not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception ... is inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 159 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
State v. Wood
green
2 sentences1990See also Bourjaily v. United States, supra, 183 (applied the Roberts rule to coconspirator exception); State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125,135-36 , 545 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 895 , 109 S. Ct. 235 , 102 L. 1990See also Bourjaily v. United States, supra, 183 (applied the Roberts rule to coconspirator exception); State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125,135-36 , 545 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 895 , 109 S. Ct. 235 , 102 L. | 2 | 1989–1990 |
Ferenc v. Internal Revenue Service
green
2 sentences1990See also Bourjaily v. United States, supra, 183 (applied the Roberts rule to coconspirator exception); State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125,135-36 , 545 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 895 , 109 S. Ct. 235 , 102 L. 1990See also Bourjaily v. United States, supra, 183 (applied the Roberts rule to coconspirator exception); State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125,135-36 , 545 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 895 , 109 S. Ct. 235 , 102 L. | 2 | 1989–1990 |
Kitchen v. Indiana
green
2 sentences1990See also Bourjaily v. United States, supra, 183 (applied the Roberts rule to coconspirator exception); State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125,135-36 , 545 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 895 , 109 S. Ct. 235 , 102 L. 1989State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125, 135 , 545 A.2d 1026 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 895 , 109 S. Ct. 235 , 107 L. | 2 | 1989–1990 |
State v. Lyle
green
1 sentence2002Prior testimony [at a pretrial hearing] is a well rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Atkins, 57 Conn. App. 248, 254 , 748 A.2d 343 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 916 , 754 A.2d 164 (2000), citing State v. Malone, 40 Conn. App. 470, 479 , 671 A.2d 1321 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 904 , 674 A.2d 1332 (1996); see Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. 72 -73. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Lemoine v. McCann
green
1 sentence2002Prior testimony [at a pretrial hearing] is a well rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Atkins, 57 Conn. App. 248, 254 , 748 A.2d 343 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 916 , 754 A.2d 164 (2000), citing State v. Malone, 40 Conn. App. 470, 479 , 671 A.2d 1321 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 904 , 674 A.2d 1332 (1996); see Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. 72 -73. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2002Prior testimony [at a pretrial hearing] is a well rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Atkins, 57 Conn. App. 248, 254 , 748 A.2d 343 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 916 , 754 A.2d 164 (2000), citing State v. Malone, 40 Conn. App. 470, 479 , 671 A.2d 1321 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 904 , 674 A.2d 1332 (1996); see Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. 72 -73. 2002Prior testimony [at a pretrial hearing] is a well rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Atkins, 57 Conn. App. 248, 254 , 748 A.2d 343 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 916 , 754 A.2d 164 (2000), citing State v. Malone, 40 Conn. App. 470, 479 , 671 A.2d 1321 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 904 , 674 A.2d 1332 (1996); see Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. 72 -73. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Malone
green
2 sentences2002Prior testimony [at a pretrial hearing] is a well rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Atkins, 57 Conn. App. 248, 254 , 748 A.2d 343 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 916 , 754 A.2d 164 (2000), citing State v. Malone, 40 Conn. App. 470, 479 , 671 A.2d 1321 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 904 , 674 A.2d 1332 (1996); see Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. 72 -73. 2002Prior testimony [at a pretrial hearing] is a well rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Atkins, 57 Conn. App. 248, 254 , 748 A.2d 343 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 916 , 754 A.2d 164 (2000), citing State v. Malone, 40 Conn. App. 470, 479 , 671 A.2d 1321 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 904 , 674 A.2d 1332 (1996); see Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. 72 -73. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2002Although “[u]npreserved hearsay claims do not automatically invoke constitutional rights to confrontation;” (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Dixon, 62 Conn. App. 643, 649 , 772 A.2d 166 (2001); “[e]vidence that does not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception ... is inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 159 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. 2002Although “[u]npreserved hearsay claims do not automatically invoke constitutional rights to confrontation;” (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Dixon, 62 Conn. App. 643, 649 , 772 A.2d 166 (2001); “[e]vidence that does not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception ... is inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 159 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Atkins
green
2 sentences2002Prior testimony [at a pretrial hearing] is a well rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Atkins, 57 Conn. App. 248, 254 , 748 A.2d 343 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 916 , 754 A.2d 164 (2000), citing State v. Malone, 40 Conn. App. 470, 479 , 671 A.2d 1321 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 904 , 674 A.2d 1332 (1996); see Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. 72 -73. 2002Prior testimony [at a pretrial hearing] is a well rooted exception to the hearsay rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Atkins, 57 Conn. App. 248, 254 , 748 A.2d 343 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 916 , 754 A.2d 164 (2000), citing State v. Malone, 40 Conn. App. 470, 479 , 671 A.2d 1321 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 904 , 674 A.2d 1332 (1996); see Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. 72 -73. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Outlaw
green
2 sentences1995In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” As this court noted in State v. Outlaw, 216 Conn. 492, 505 , 582 A.2d 751 (1990), “[b]y engaging in a search for ‘particularized guarantees of trustworthiness’ in Roberts, the United States Supreme Court implicitly held that the exception to the hearsay rule for statements given by an unavailable declarant at a preliminary hearing was not so firmly rooted as to obviate further inquiry and search of the record.” The United States Supreme Court has never addressed the issue 1995In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” As this court noted in State v. Outlaw, 216 Conn. 492, 505 , 582 A.2d 751 (1990), “[b]y engaging in a search for ‘particularized guarantees of trustworthiness’ in Roberts, the United States Supreme Court implicitly held that the exception to the hearsay rule for statements given by an unavailable declarant at a preliminary hearing was not so firmly rooted as to obviate further inquiry and search of the record.” The United States Supreme Court has never addressed the issue | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Manchester v. Zoning Board of Appeals
green
1 sentence1994State v. Bruens, 18 Conn. App. 459, 461 , 557 A.2d 1290 , cert. denied, 212 Conn. 804 , 561 A.2d 946 (1989). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Hallas v. Freedom of Information Commission
green
1 sentence1994State v. Bruens, 18 Conn. App. 459, 461 , 557 A.2d 1290 , cert. denied, 212 Conn. 804 , 561 A.2d 946 (1989). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Kelley
green
2 sentences1994In State v. Kelley, 229 Conn. 557, 563-64 , 643 A.2d 854 (1994), our Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s claim that constancy testimony did not fall within a recognized hearsay exception. 1994In State v. Kelley, 229 Conn. 557, 563-64 , 643 A.2d 854 (1994), our Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s claim that constancy testimony did not fall within a recognized hearsay exception. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Bruens
neutral
2 sentences1994State v. Bruens, 18 Conn. App. 459, 461 , 557 A.2d 1290 , cert. denied, 212 Conn. 804 , 561 A.2d 946 (1989). 1994State v. Bruens, 18 Conn. App. 459, 461 , 557 A.2d 1290 , cert. denied, 212 Conn. 804 , 561 A.2d 946 (1989). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Morrill
green
2 sentences1990We begin our analysis by holding that adoptive admissions are a firmly rooted hearsay exception and thus if the trial court did find that the informant’s statements were adoptive admissions, the statements were properly admitted. “ ‘Where hearsay accusations are sought to be introduced as evidence against a defendant in a criminal proceeding on grounds that the hearsay was “adopted” by defendant as an admission of his guilt, the trial court must first determine that the asserted adoptive admission be manifested by conduct or statements which are unequivocal, positive, and definite in nature, c 1990We begin our analysis by holding that adoptive admissions are a firmly rooted hearsay exception and thus if the trial court did find that the informant’s statements were adoptive admissions, the statements were properly admitted. “ ‘Where hearsay accusations are sought to be introduced as evidence against a defendant in a criminal proceeding on grounds that the hearsay was “adopted” by defendant as an admission of his guilt, the trial court must first determine that the asserted adoptive admission be manifested by conduct or statements which are unequivocal, positive, and definite in nature, c | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Bourjaily v. United States
green
1 sentence1988Id., quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.