misconduct was invited defense in Connecticut

130 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2019 0 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
United States v. Gaetano Modicagreen ca2 · 1981 · cited in 23 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1987–2004 2 sentences 2004Included among those factors are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989 , 102 S. Ct. 2269 , 73 L. 2003Included among those factors are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989 , 102 S. Ct. 2269 , 73 L.	23	23
Hydrolevel Corp. v. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc.green scotus · 1982 · cited in 20 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1998–2004 2 sentences 2004Included among those factors are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989 , 102 S. Ct. 2269 , 73 L. 2003Included among those factors are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989 , 102 S. Ct. 2269 , 73 L.	20	20
American Indians Residing on the Maricopa-Ak Chin Reservation v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 20 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1998–2004 2 sentences 2004Included among those factors are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989 , 102 S. Ct. 2269 , 73 L. 2003Included among those factors are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989 , 102 S. Ct. 2269 , 73 L.	20	20
Moore v. Jordangreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 19 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1998–2004 2 sentences 2004Included among those factors are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989 , 102 S. Ct. 2269 , 73 L. 2003Included among those factors are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989 , 102 S. Ct. 2269 , 73 L.	19	19
Hawthorne v. United Statesgreen dc · 1984 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1987–1999 2 sentences 1995Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Fullwood, [ 194 Conn. 573, 585 , 484 A.2d 435 (1984)]; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981); the frequency of the misconduct; State v. Couture, [ 194 Conn. 530, 562-63 , 482 A.2d 300 (1984)]; see State v. Doehrer, supra, [200 Conn.] 654; State v. Palmer, supra, [196 Conn.] 163; the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case; Hawthorne v. United States, 476 1987Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Fullwood, supra; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981); the frequency of the misconduct; State v. Couture, supra, 562-63 ; see State v. Doehrer, supra, 654 ; State v. Palmer, supra, 163 ; the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case; Hawthorne v. United States, 476 A.2d 164, 172 (D.C.	4	4
State v. Doehrergreen conn · 1986 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1988–1999	2	2
State v. Williamsgreen conn · 1987 · cited in 40 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1988–2019 2 sentences 2019Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument ... the severity of the misconduct ... the frequency of the misconduct ... the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case ... the strength of the curative measures adopted ... and the strength of the state's case." (Citations omitted.) State v. Williams , supra, 204 Conn. at 540 , 529 A.2d 653 . "[W]hen prosecutorial [impropriety] is not so egregious as to implicate the defendant's right to a fair trial, an appellate court may invoke its supervisory authority to reverse a criminal 2019Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument ... the severity of the misconduct ... the frequency of the misconduct ... the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case ... the strength of the curative measures adopted ... and the strength of the state's case." (Citations omitted.) State v. Williams , supra, 204 Conn. at 540 , 529 A.2d 653 . "[W]hen prosecutorial [impropriety] is not so egregious as to implicate the defendant's right to a fair trial, an appellate court may invoke its supervisory authority to reverse a criminal	1	40
State v. Singhgreen conn · 2002 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2002–2003 2 sentences 2003This final determination requires . . . the consideration of several factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument, the severity of the misconduct, the frequency of the misconduct, the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, the strength of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693, 723 , 793 A.2d 226 (2002); see also State v. Whipper, supra, 258 Conn. 262 -63. 2003This final determination requires . . . the consideration of several factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument, the severity of the misconduct, the frequency of the misconduct, the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, the strength of the curative measures adopted and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693, 723 , 793 A.2d 226 (2002); see also State v. Whipper, supra, 258 Conn. 262 -63.	1	4
State v. McKiernangreen conn · 2003 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2004–2005 2 sentences 2005Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McKieman, 78 Conn. App. 182, 195-96 , 826 A.2d 1210 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 902 , 832 A.2d 66 (2003). 2004Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 196.	1	2
State v. Marshallgreen connappct · 2005 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	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 (70)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Falcone green conn · 1983 2 sentences 2004Included among those factors are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989 , 102 S. Ct. 2269 , 73 L. 2004Included among those factors are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989 , 102 S. Ct. 2269 , 73 L.	23	1987–2004
State v. Couture green conn · 1984 2 sentences 1995Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Fullwood, [ 194 Conn. 573, 585 , 484 A.2d 435 (1984)]; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981); the frequency of the misconduct; State v. Couture, [ 194 Conn. 530, 562-63 , 482 A.2d 300 (1984)]; see State v. Doehrer, supra, [200 Conn.] 654; State v. Palmer, supra, [196 Conn.] 163; the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case; Hawthorne v. United States, 476 1995Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Fullwood, [ 194 Conn. 573, 585 , 484 A.2d 435 (1984)]; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981); the frequency of the misconduct; State v. Couture, [ 194 Conn. 530, 562-63 , 482 A.2d 300 (1984)]; see State v. Doehrer, supra, [200 Conn.] 654; State v. Palmer, supra, [196 Conn.] 163; the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case; Hawthorne v. United States, 476	21	1988–2004
Baumann v. Typographic Innovations, Inc. green scotus · 1985 2 sentences 1988Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Fullwood, [ 194 Conn. 573, 585 , 484 A.2d 435 (1984)]; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981); the frequency of the misconduct; State v. Couture [ 194 Conn. 530, 562-63 , 482 A.2d 300 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192 , 105 S. Ct. 967 , 83 L. 1988Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Fullwood, [ 194 Conn. 573, 585 , 484 A.2d 435 (1984)]; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981); the frequency of the misconduct; State v. Couture [ 194 Conn. 530, 562-63 , 482 A.2d 300 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192 , 105 S. Ct. 967 , 83 L.	20	1988–2004
Fred Lavery Porsche Audi Co. v. Kearns green scotus · 1985 2 sentences 2004Ed. 2d 1284 (1982); the frequency of the misconduct; State v. Couture, 194 Conn. 530, 562-63 , 482 A.2d 300 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192 , 105 S. Ct. 967 , 83 L. 1988Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Fullwood, [ 194 Conn. 573, 585 , 484 A.2d 435 (1984)]; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981); the frequency of the misconduct; State v. Couture [ 194 Conn. 530, 562-63 , 482 A.2d 300 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192 , 105 S. Ct. 967 , 83 L.	20	1988–2004
State v. Williams neutral connappct · 1996 2 sentences 2000In so doing, “we focus on several factors: (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) the frequency of the conduct; (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues of the case; (5) the strength of the curative instructions adopted; and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” State v. Williams, 41 Conn. App. 180, 190 , 674 A.2d 1372 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 925 , 677 A.2d 950 (1996). 2000In so doing, “we focus on several factors: (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) the frequency of the conduct; (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues of the case; (5) the strength of the curative instructions adopted; and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” State v. Williams, 41 Conn. App. 180, 190 , 674 A.2d 1372 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 925 , 677 A.2d 950 (1996).	9	1996–2001
State v. Fullwood green conn · 1984 2 sentences 2003Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Fullwood, supra [ 194 Conn. 573 ]; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981) [cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989 , 102 S. Ct. 2269 , 73 L. 2002Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; State v. Full-wood, supra [ 194 Conn. 573 ]; State v. Falcone, 191 Conn. 12, 23 , 463 A.2d 558 (1983); the severity of the misconduct; see United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1181 (2d Cir. 1981) [cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989 , 102 S Ct. 2269, 73 L.	7	1988–2003
State v. Williams green conn · 1996 2 sentences 2000In so doing, “we focus on several factors: (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) the frequency of the conduct; (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues of the case; (5) the strength of the curative instructions adopted; and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” State v. Williams, 41 Conn. App. 180, 190 , 674 A.2d 1372 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 925 , 677 A.2d 950 (1996). 1999To make this determination, we must focus on several factors: “ ‘(1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) the frequency of the conduct; (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues of the case; (5) the strength of the curative instructions adopted; and (6) the strength of the state’s case.’ State v. Williams, 41 Conn. App. 180, 190 , 674 A.2d 1372 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 925 , 677 A.2d 950 (1996).” State v. Garrett, supra, 516 .	7	1998–2001
State v. Peters green conn · 1996 2 sentences 2000In so doing, “we focus on several factors: (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) the frequency of the conduct; (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues of the case; (5) the strength of the curative instructions adopted; and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” State v. Williams, 41 Conn. App. 180, 190 , 674 A.2d 1372 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 925 , 677 A.2d 950 (1996). 1999To make this determination, we must focus on several factors: “ ‘(1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) the frequency of the conduct; (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues of the case; (5) the strength of the curative instructions adopted; and (6) the strength of the state’s case.’ State v. Williams, 41 Conn. App. 180, 190 , 674 A.2d 1372 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 925 , 677 A.2d 950 (1996).” State v. Garrett, supra, 516 .	7	1998–2001
State v. Johnson green conn · 2002 2 sentences 2003Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jefferson, 67 Conn. App. 249, 267 , 786 A.2d 1189 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 918 , 791 A.2d 566 (2002). 2002Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jefferson, 67 Conn. App. 249, 266-67 , 786 A.2d 1189 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 918 , 791 A.2d 566 (2002).	6	2002–2003
State v. Jefferson green conn · 2002 2 sentences 2003Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jefferson, 67 Conn. App. 249, 267 , 786 A.2d 1189 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 918 , 791 A.2d 566 (2002). 2002Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jefferson, 67 Conn. App. 249, 266-67 , 786 A.2d 1189 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 918 , 791 A.2d 566 (2002).	6	2002–2003
State v. Jefferson green connappct · 2001 2 sentences 2003Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jefferson, 67 Conn. App. 249, 267 , 786 A.2d 1189 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 918 , 791 A.2d 566 (2002). 2003Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jefferson, 67 Conn. App. 249, 267 , 786 A.2d 1189 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 918 , 791 A.2d 566 (2002).	6	2002–2003
State v. Stevenson green conn · 2004 2 sentences 2007Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 572-73 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004). 2007Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 572-73 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004).	5	2005–2007
State v. Whipper green conn · 2001 2 sentences 2002“Included among those factors are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Whipper, 258 Conn. 229, 262-63 , 780 A.2d 53 (2001). 2002“Included among those factors are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 262-63 .	5	2001–2002
State v. Warholic green conn · 2006 2 sentences 2008This inquiry is guided by an examination of the following Williams factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354, 396 , 897 A.2d 569 (2006); State v. Williams, supra, 204 Conn. 540 . 2008This inquiry is guided by an examination of the following Williams factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354, 396 , 897 A.2d 569 (2006); State v. Williams, supra, 204 Conn. 540 .	4	2007–2015
State v. Garrett green conn · 1996 2 sentences 2003In conducting our analysis, we focus on several factors: (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) the frequency of the conduct; (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues of the case; (5) the strength of the curative instructions adopted; and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Garrett, 42 Conn. App. 507, 515-16 , 681 A.2d 362 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 928 , 929, 683 A.2d 398 (1996). 2002In conducting our analysis, we focus on several factors: (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) the frequency of the conduct; (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues of the case; (5) the strength of the curative instructions adopted; and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Garrett, 42 Conn. App. 507, 515 , 681 A.2d 362 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 928 , 929, 683 A.2d 398 (1996).	3	2002–2003
State v. Pieger green conn · 1996 2 sentences 2003In conducting our analysis, we focus on several factors: (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) the frequency of the conduct; (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues of the case; (5) the strength of the curative instructions adopted; and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Garrett, 42 Conn. App. 507, 515-16 , 681 A.2d 362 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 928 , 929, 683 A.2d 398 (1996). 2002In conducting our analysis, we focus on several factors: (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) the frequency of the conduct; (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues of the case; (5) the strength of the curative instructions adopted; and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Garrett, 42 Conn. App. 507, 515 , 681 A.2d 362 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 928 , 929, 683 A.2d 398 (1996).	3	2002–2003
State v. Garrett green connappct · 1996 2 sentences 2003In conducting our analysis, we focus on several factors: (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) the frequency of the conduct; (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues of the case; (5) the strength of the curative instructions adopted; and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Garrett, 42 Conn. App. 507, 515-16 , 681 A.2d 362 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 928 , 929, 683 A.2d 398 (1996). 2003In conducting our analysis, we focus on several factors: (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) the frequency of the conduct; (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues of the case; (5) the strength of the curative instructions adopted; and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Garrett, 42 Conn. App. 507, 515-16 , 681 A.2d 362 , cert. denied, 239 Conn. 928 , 929, 683 A.2d 398 (1996).	3	2002–2003
State v. Brown green conn · 2001 2 sentences 2001Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291, 297-98 , 772 A.2d 1107 (2001). 2001Among them are the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brown, 256 Conn. 291, 297-98 , 772 A.2d 1107 (2001).	3	2001–2001
State v. Hedge green connappct · 2006 2 sentences 2006The factors to be considered in assessing the prosecutor’s actions include the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hedge, 93 Conn. App. 693, 702-703 , 890 A.2d 612 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 930 , 896 A.2d 102 (2006), quoting State v. Williams, 204 Conn 2006The factors to be considered in assessing the prosecutor’s actions include the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hedge, 93 Conn. App. 693, 702-703 , 890 A.2d 612 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 930 , 896 A.2d 102 (2006), quoting State v. Williams, 204 Conn	2	2006–2006
State v. Schiavo green connappct · 2006 2 sentences 2006This inquiry is guided by an examination of the following Williams factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schiavo, 93 Conn. App. 290, 302 , 888 A.2d 1115 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 923 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006). 2006This inquiry is guided by an examination of the following Williams factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schiavo, 93 Conn. App. 290, 302 , 888 A.2d 1115 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 923 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006).	2	2006–2006
State v. Schiavo green conn · 2006 2 sentences 2006This inquiry is guided by an examination of the following Williams factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schiavo, 93 Conn. App. 290, 302 , 888 A.2d 1115 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 923 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006). 2006This inquiry is guided by an examination of the following Williams factors: the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schiavo, 93 Conn. App. 290, 302 , 888 A.2d 1115 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 923 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006).	2	2006–2006
State v. Rodriguez green conn · 2006 2 sentences 2006The factors to be considered in assessing the prosecutor’s actions include the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hedge, 93 Conn. App. 693, 702-703 , 890 A.2d 612 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 930 , 896 A.2d 102 (2006), quoting State v. Williams, 204 Conn 2006The factors to be considered in assessing the prosecutor’s actions include the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the misconduct . . . the frequency of the misconduct . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hedge, 93 Conn. App. 693, 702-703 , 890 A.2d 612 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 930 , 896 A.2d 102 (2006), quoting State v. Williams, 204 Conn	2	2006–2006
State v. Tate green conn · 2002	2	2003–2003
State v. Stevenson green conn · 2002	2	2003–2003
State v. Stevenson green connappct · 2002	2	2003–2003
State v. Forde green conn · 1999	2	2001–2001
State v. Mollo green conn · 2001	2	2001–2001
Sullivan v. Town of Monroe neutral conn · 2001	2	2001–2001
Paul Revere Life Insurance v. Pastena green conn · 1999	2	2001–2001
State v. Forde green connappct · 1999	2	2001–2001
State v. Payne green connappct · 2001	2	2001–2001
State v. Aponte green conn · 1999	2	2000–2000
State v. Aponte green connappct · 1998	2	1999–2000
State v. Palmer green conn · 1985	2	1988–1999
John Harris, Jr. v. United States green cadc · 1968	2	1987–1995
State v. Santiago green connappct · 2013	1	2019–2019
State v. Dillard green conn · 2001	1	2012–2012
State v. Dillard green connappct · 2001	1	2012–2012
Miranda v. Arizona green scotus · 1966	1	2009–2009
State v. Ayuso green connappct · 2008	1	2008–2008

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a (30) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-21 (27) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-59 (26) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-70 (23) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-48 (19) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-49 (14) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-8 (14) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-84 (13) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3 (12) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-134 (11) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-55 (11) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86e (11)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check