unpreserved evidentiary claim in Connecticut

20 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 4 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Goldinggreen conn · 1989 · cited in 6 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2010–2022 2 sentences 2018Evidentiary claims do not merit review pursuant to State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), because they are not of constitutional magnitude.... [A] defendant may not transform an unpreserved evidentiary claim into one of prosecutorial impropriety to obtain review of the claim." (Citation omitted; footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cromety , 102 Conn. App. 425 , 431, 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007) ; see In re Yasiel R. , 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015) (modifying third condition of Golding ). 2018Evidentiary claims do not merit review pursuant to State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), because they are not of constitutional magnitude.... [A] defendant may not transform an unpreserved evidentiary claim into one of prosecutorial impropriety to obtain review of the claim." (Citation omitted; footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cromety , 102 Conn. App. 425 , 431, 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007) ; see In re Yasiel R. , 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015) (modifying third condition of Golding ).	3	6
State v. Robinsongreen connappct · 2011 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See State v. Robinson, 129 Conn. App. 331, 336-37 , 19 A.3d 259 (2011). 2012See State v. Robinson, 129 Conn. App. 331, 336-37 , 19 A.3d 259 (2011).	1	2
State v. Toccalinegreen conn · 2001 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020See, e.g., State v. Toccaline, 258 Conn. 542, 550 , 783 A.2d 450 (2001). 2020See, e.g., State v. Toccaline, 258 Conn. 542, 550 , 783 A.2d 450 (2001).	1	1
State v. Faucigreen conn · 2007 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Ed. 2d 815 (2006). 4 In his brief, the petitioner claimed that ‘‘[a] claim of prosecutorial impro- priety, whether preserved at trial or not, warrants review.’’ Although this is true; see State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23, 33 , 917 A.2d 978 (2007); in light of the petitioner’s concession that the claim is really evidentiary in nature, the petitioner has failed to articulate a basis on which this court can review an unpreserved evidentiary claim. 2014Ed. 2d 815 (2006). 4 In his brief, the petitioner claimed that ‘‘[a] claim of prosecutorial impro- priety, whether preserved at trial or not, warrants review.’’ Although this is true; see State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23, 33 , 917 A.2d 978 (2007); in light of the petitioner’s concession that the claim is really evidentiary in nature, the petitioner has failed to articulate a basis on which this court can review an unpreserved evidentiary claim.	1	1
State v. Kinggreen conn · 1999 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012Finally, we have decided that a defendant’s unpreserved evidentiary claim fails under Golding without stating explicitly the specific prong that was not satisfied; see, e.g., State v. King, 249 Conn. 645 , 609 676-80 and n.39, 735 A.2d 267 (1999) (noting that defendant sought to prevail under Golding but concluding that defendant’s claim of improper restriction on cross-examination was evidentiary, not constitutional); State v. Pratt, 235 Conn. 595, 602-606 , 669 A.2d 562 (1995) (same); and, on at least one occasion, we have held that the defendant’s claim fails under both the second and thir 2012Finally, we have decided that a defendant’s unpreserved evidentiary claim fails under Golding without stating explicitly the specific prong that was not satisfied; see, e.g., State v. King, 249 Conn. 645 , 609 676-80 and n.39, 735 A.2d 267 (1999) (noting that defendant sought to prevail under Golding but concluding that defendant’s claim of improper restriction on cross-examination was evidentiary, not constitutional); State v. Pratt, 235 Conn. 595, 602-606 , 669 A.2d 562 (1995) (same); and, on at least one occasion, we have held that the defendant’s claim fails under both the second and thir	1	1
Ellis v. Emerygreen ca9 · 2006 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See, e.g., State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 813-14, 820-21 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005) (defendant’s claim that admission of certain hearsay evidence violated her right to confrontation was evidentiary in nature and thus failed under second prong of Golding, but court engaged in three page review of record to reach its conclusion), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1025 , 126 S. Ct. 1578 , 164 L. 2012See, e.g., State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 813-14, 820-21 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005) (defendant’s claim that admission of certain hearsay evidence violated her right to confrontation was evidentiary in nature and thus failed under second prong of Golding, but court engaged in three page review of record to reach its conclusion), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1025 , 126 S. Ct. 1578 , 164 L.	1	1
State v. Carpentergreen conn · 2005 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See, e.g., State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 813-14, 820-21 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005) (defendant’s claim that admission of certain hearsay evidence violated her right to confrontation was evidentiary in nature and thus failed under second prong of Golding, but court engaged in three page review of record to reach its conclusion), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1025 , 126 S. Ct. 1578 , 164 L. 2012See, e.g., State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 813-14, 820-21 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005) (defendant’s claim that admission of certain hearsay evidence violated her right to confrontation was evidentiary in nature and thus failed under second prong of Golding, but court engaged in three page review of record to reach its conclusion), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1025 , 126 S. Ct. 1578 , 164 L.	1	1
Smith v. Town of Greenwichgreen conn · 2006 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See Smith v. Greenwich, 278 Conn. 428, 446-47 , 899 A.2d 563 (2006). 2008See Smith v. Greenwich, 278 Conn. 428, 446-47 , 899 A.2d 563 (2006).	1	1
State v. Wrightgreen conn · 2001 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See State v. Paris, 63 Conn. App. 284, 294-95 , 775 A.2d 994 , cert. denied, 257 Conn. 909 , 782 A.2d 135 (2001). 2002See State v. Paris, 63 Conn. App. 284, 294-95 , 775 A.2d 994 , cert. denied, 257 Conn. 909 , 782 A.2d 135 (2001).	1	1
State v. Parisgreen connappct · 2001 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See State v. Paris, 63 Conn. App. 284, 294-95 , 775 A.2d 994 , cert. denied, 257 Conn. 909 , 782 A.2d 135 (2001). 2002See State v. Paris, 63 Conn. App. 284, 294-95 , 775 A.2d 994 , cert. denied, 257 Conn. 909 , 782 A.2d 135 (2001).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (20)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Cromety green connappct · 2007 2 sentences 2018Evidentiary claims do not merit review pursuant to State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), because they are not of constitutional magnitude.... [A] defendant may not transform an unpreserved evidentiary claim into one of prosecutorial impropriety to obtain review of the claim." (Citation omitted; footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cromety , 102 Conn. App. 425 , 431, 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007) ; see In re Yasiel R. , 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015) (modifying third condition of Golding ). 2018Evidentiary claims do not merit review pursuant to State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), because they are not of constitutional magnitude.... [A] defendant may not transform an unpreserved evidentiary claim into one of prosecutorial impropriety to obtain review of the claim." (Citation omitted; footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cromety , 102 Conn. App. 425 , 431, 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007) ; see In re Yasiel R. , 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015) (modifying third condition of Golding ).	4	2009–2018
State v. Vallejo green conn · 2007 2 sentences 2018Evidentiary claims do not merit review pursuant to State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), because they are not of constitutional magnitude.... [A] defendant may not transform an unpreserved evidentiary claim into one of prosecutorial impropriety to obtain review of the claim." (Citation omitted; footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cromety , 102 Conn. App. 425 , 431, 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007) ; see In re Yasiel R. , 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015) (modifying third condition of Golding ). 2015It is well established that ‘‘[a]n appellate court shall not be bound to consider a claim unless it was distinctly raised at the trial or arose subsequent to the trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cro- mety, 102 Conn. App. 425, 431 , 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007). ‘‘[A] defen- dant may not transform an unpreserved evidentiary claim into one of prosecutorial impropriety to obtain review of that claim.’’ Id.	4	2009–2018
State v. Andrews green conn · 2007 2 sentences 2018Evidentiary claims do not merit review pursuant to State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), because they are not of constitutional magnitude.... [A] defendant may not transform an unpreserved evidentiary claim into one of prosecutorial impropriety to obtain review of the claim." (Citation omitted; footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cromety , 102 Conn. App. 425 , 431, 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007) ; see In re Yasiel R. , 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015) (modifying third condition of Golding ). 2015It is well established that ‘‘[a]n appellate court shall not be bound to consider a claim unless it was distinctly raised at the trial or arose subsequent to the trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cro- mety, 102 Conn. App. 425, 431 , 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007). ‘‘[A] defen- dant may not transform an unpreserved evidentiary claim into one of prosecutorial impropriety to obtain review of that claim.’’ Id.	4	2009–2018
State v. Waters green connappct · 2022 1 sentence 2025An evidentiary error rises to the level of a due process violation only if it ‘‘was so crucial, critical, and highly significant that [the peti- tioner] was denied a fair trial.’’ State v. Waters, 214 Conn. App. 294 , 314–15, 280 A.3d 601 , cert. denied, 345 Conn. 914 , 284 A.3d 25 (2022).	1	2025–2025
State v. Turner green conn · 2020 1 sentence 2024The commissioner concedes that most of the challenged hearsay statements were improperly admitted21 but claims that their admission was harmless because ‘‘the outcome of the trial would have been no different had the statements been 20 We note that our Supreme Court ‘‘has recognized that an unpreserved evidentiary claim may be constitutional in nature if there is a resultant denial of fundamental fairness or the denial of a specific constitutional right . . . .’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 334 Conn. 660, 674 , 224 A.3d 129 (2020).	1	2024–2024
State v. Warren green conn · 2004 2 sentences 2018"Regardless of how the defendant has framed the issue, he cannot clothe an ordinary evidentiary issue in constitutional garb to obtain appellate review." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warren , 83 Conn. App. 446 , 452, 850 A.2d 1086 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 907 , 859 A.2d 567 (2004). 2018"Regardless of how the defendant has framed the issue, he cannot clothe an ordinary evidentiary issue in constitutional garb to obtain appellate review." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warren , 83 Conn. App. 446 , 452, 850 A.2d 1086 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 907 , 859 A.2d 567 (2004).	1	2018–2018
State v. Warren green connappct · 2004 2 sentences 2018"Regardless of how the defendant has framed the issue, he cannot clothe an ordinary evidentiary issue in constitutional garb to obtain appellate review." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warren , 83 Conn. App. 446 , 452, 850 A.2d 1086 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 907 , 859 A.2d 567 (2004). 2018"Regardless of how the defendant has framed the issue, he cannot clothe an ordinary evidentiary issue in constitutional garb to obtain appellate review." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warren , 83 Conn. App. 446 , 452, 850 A.2d 1086 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 907 , 859 A.2d 567 (2004).	1	2018–2018
State v. Myers green conn · 2009 2 sentences 2018We simply are unpersuaded that the defendant's unpreserved evidentiary claim rises to the level of an "extraordinary [situation in which] the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Myers , supra, 290 Conn. at 287 -88 , 963 A.2d 11 . 2018We simply are unpersuaded that the defendant's unpreserved evidentiary claim rises to the level of an "extraordinary [situation in which] the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Myers , supra, 290 Conn. at 287 -88 , 963 A.2d 11 .	1	2018–2018
State v. Luster green conn · 2006 2 sentences 2018The prosecutor's comment during closing argument referred to facts in evidence and, therefore, was not improper. 3 "It is not ... improper for the prosecutor to comment upon the evidence presented at trial and to argue the inferences that the jurors might draw therefrom ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Luster , 279 Conn. 414 , 435, 902 A.2d 636 (2006). 2018The prosecutor's comment during closing argument referred to facts in evidence and, therefore, was not improper. 3 "It is not ... improper for the prosecutor to comment upon the evidence presented at trial and to argue the inferences that the jurors might draw therefrom ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Luster , 279 Conn. 414 , 435, 902 A.2d 636 (2006).	1	2018–2018
State v. Pratt green conn · 1995 2 sentences 2012Finally, we have decided that a defendant’s unpreserved evidentiary claim fails under Golding without stating explicitly the specific prong that was not satisfied; see, e.g., State v. King, 249 Conn. 645 , 609 676-80 and n.39, 735 A.2d 267 (1999) (noting that defendant sought to prevail under Golding but concluding that defendant’s claim of improper restriction on cross-examination was evidentiary, not constitutional); State v. Pratt, 235 Conn. 595, 602-606 , 669 A.2d 562 (1995) (same); and, on at least one occasion, we have held that the defendant’s claim fails under both the second and thir 2012Finally, we have decided that a defendant’s unpreserved evidentiary claim fails under Golding without stating explicitly the specific prong that was not satisfied; see, e.g., State v. King, 249 Conn. 645 , 609 676-80 and n.39, 735 A.2d 267 (1999) (noting that defendant sought to prevail under Golding but concluding that defendant’s claim of improper restriction on cross-examination was evidentiary, not constitutional); State v. Pratt, 235 Conn. 595, 602-606 , 669 A.2d 562 (1995) (same); and, on at least one occasion, we have held that the defendant’s claim fails under both the second and thir	1	2012–2012
State v. Schiappa green conn · 1999 2 sentences 2012State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 164-65 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. 2012State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 164-65 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L.	1	2012–2012
Stephen v. United States green scotus · 1999 1 sentence 2012State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 164-65 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L.	1	2012–2012
Rentz v. Davis, Dir. Gen'l. green · 1922 1 sentence 2012State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 164-65 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L.	1	2012–2012
State v. D'HAITY green connappct · 2007 2 sentences 2009Thus, although a claim of prosecutorial impropriety warrants review even if the defendant fails to preserve it at trial; State v. D’Haity, 99 Conn. App. 375, 382 , 914 A.2d 570 , cert. denied, 282 Conn. 912 , 924 A.2d 137 (2007); “[t]he defendant may not transform an unpreserved evidentiary claim into one of prosecutorial impropriety to obtain review of the claim.” State v. Cromety, 102 Conn. App. 425, 431 , 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007). 2009Thus, although a claim of prosecutorial impropriety warrants review even if the defendant fails to preserve it at trial; State v. D’Haity, 99 Conn. App. 375, 382 , 914 A.2d 570 , cert. denied, 282 Conn. 912 , 924 A.2d 137 (2007); “[t]he defendant may not transform an unpreserved evidentiary claim into one of prosecutorial impropriety to obtain review of the claim.” State v. Cromety, 102 Conn. App. 425, 431 , 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007).	1	2009–2009
Bernhard-Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. Dunican green conn · 2007 2 sentences 2009Thus, although a claim of prosecutorial impropriety warrants review even if the defendant fails to preserve it at trial; State v. D’Haity, 99 Conn. App. 375, 382 , 914 A.2d 570 , cert. denied, 282 Conn. 912 , 924 A.2d 137 (2007); “[t]he defendant may not transform an unpreserved evidentiary claim into one of prosecutorial impropriety to obtain review of the claim.” State v. Cromety, 102 Conn. App. 425, 431 , 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007). 2009Thus, although a claim of prosecutorial impropriety warrants review even if the defendant fails to preserve it at trial; State v. D’Haity, 99 Conn. App. 375, 382 , 914 A.2d 570 , cert. denied, 282 Conn. 912 , 924 A.2d 137 (2007); “[t]he defendant may not transform an unpreserved evidentiary claim into one of prosecutorial impropriety to obtain review of the claim.” State v. Cromety, 102 Conn. App. 425, 431 , 925 A.2d 1133 , cert. denied, 284 Conn. 912 , 931 A.2d 932 (2007).	1	2009–2009
State v. Izzo green connappct · 2004 2 sentences 2007We have previously stated that “[r]obing garden variety claims [of an evidentiary nature] in the majestic garb of constitutional claims does not make such claims constitutional in nature.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Izzo, 82 Conn. App. 285 , 291 n.2, 843 A.2d 661 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 902 , 853 A.2d 521 (2004). 2007We have previously stated that “[r]obing garden variety claims [of an evidentiary nature] in the majestic garb of constitutional claims does not make such claims constitutional in nature.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Izzo, 82 Conn. App. 285 , 291 n.2, 843 A.2d 661 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 902 , 853 A.2d 521 (2004).	1	2007–2007
State v. Izzo green conn · 2004 2 sentences 2007We have previously stated that “[r]obing garden variety claims [of an evidentiary nature] in the majestic garb of constitutional claims does not make such claims constitutional in nature.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Izzo, 82 Conn. App. 285 , 291 n.2, 843 A.2d 661 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 902 , 853 A.2d 521 (2004). 2007We have previously stated that “[r]obing garden variety claims [of an evidentiary nature] in the majestic garb of constitutional claims does not make such claims constitutional in nature.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Izzo, 82 Conn. App. 285 , 291 n.2, 843 A.2d 661 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 902 , 853 A.2d 521 (2004).	1	2007–2007
State v. Torres green conn · 1996 1 sentence 2003State v. Teel, 42 Conn. App. 500 , 504-505 n.5, 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996).	1	2003–2003
State v. Gettes green conn · 1996 1 sentence 2003State v. Teel, 42 Conn. App. 500 , 504-505 n.5, 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996).	1	2003–2003
State v. Teel green connappct · 1996 2 sentences 2003State v. Teel, 42 Conn. App. 500 , 504-505 n.5, 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996). 2003State v. Teel, 42 Conn. App. 500 , 504-505 n.5, 681 A.2d 974 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 921 , 682 A.2d 1012 (1996).	1	2003–2003

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a (6) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-70 (5) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-21 (4) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-48 (4) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-5 (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3 (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-49 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CT 20 (2002–2025) MI 13 (2012–2024) NC 4 (2013–2022) FL 4 (1995–2015) UT 2 (2022–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance