misconduct was invited defense (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

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)

CaseFollowedCited
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.

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.

2323
Modica 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.

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.

1820
American Indians Residing on the Maricopa-Ak Chin Reservation v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1982 · cited in 18 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.

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.

1818
Hawthorne v. United Statesgreen
dc · 1984 · cited in 6 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1987–2003
2 sentences

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. Ed. 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. Ed. 2d 971 (1985) . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case; Hawthorne v. Unite

1998Included 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. Ed. 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. Ed. 2d 971 (1985); see State v. Doehrer, supra, 200 Conn. 654 ; State v. Palmer, supra, 196 Conn. 164 ; the ce

66
State v. Doehrergreen
conn · 1986 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1988–1999
22
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

140
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.

14
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.

12
State v. Marshallgreen
connappct · 2005 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
11
State v. Burtongreen
conn · 2001 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (70)

CaseCitedYears
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.

231987–2004
State v. Couture green
conn · 1984
2 sentences

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. Ed. 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. Ed. 2d 971 (1985) . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case; Hawthorne v. Unite

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. Ed. 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. Ed. 2d 971 (1985) . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case; Hawthorne v. Unite

211988–2004
Connecticut v. Couture green
scotus · 1985
2 sentences

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. Ed. 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. Ed. 2d 971 (1985) . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case; Hawthorne v. Unite

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. Ed. 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. Ed. 2d 971 (1985) . . . the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case; Hawthorne v. Unite

201988–2004
Baumann v. Typographic Innovations, Inc. 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.

181988–2004
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).

91996–2001
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.

71988–2003
State v. Williams neutral
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).

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).

71998–2001
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).

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).

62002–2003
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).

62002–2003
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).

52005–2007
State v. Whipper red
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.) Id., 262-63 .

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).

52001–2002
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 .

42007–2015
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).

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).

32002–2003
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).

32002–2003
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).

32001–2001
John Harris, Jr. v. United States green
cadc · 1968
2 sentences

1998Included 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. Ed. 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. Ed. 2d 971 (1985); see State v. Doehrer, supra, 200 Conn. 654 ; State v. Palmer, supra, 196 Conn. 164 ; the ce

1995App. 1984); the strength of the curative measures adopted; United States v. Módica, supra [1181]; Harris v. United States, 402 F.2d 656 , 657 n.1 (D.C.

31987–1998
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).

22006–2006
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).

22006–2006
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

22006–2006
State v. Hedge 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

22006–2006
State v. Stevenson green
conn · 2002
2 sentences

2003Those factors include (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or ar gument, (2) the severity of the misconduct, (3) the frequency of the misconduct, (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, (5) the strength of the curative measures adopted and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stevenson, 70 Conn. App. 29, 33-34 , 797 A.2d 1 , cert. granted on other grounds, 261 Conn. 918 , 806 A.2d 1057 (2002).

2003Those factors include (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or ar gument, (2) the severity of the misconduct, (3) the frequency of the misconduct, (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, (5) the strength of the curative measures adopted and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stevenson, 70 Conn. App. 29, 33-34 , 797 A.2d 1 , cert. granted on other grounds, 261 Conn. 918 , 806 A.2d 1057 (2002).

22003–2003
State v. Stevenson green
connappct · 2002
2 sentences

2003Those factors include (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or ar gument, (2) the severity of the misconduct, (3) the frequency of the misconduct, (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, (5) the strength of the curative measures adopted and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stevenson, 70 Conn. App. 29, 33-34 , 797 A.2d 1 , cert. granted on other grounds, 261 Conn. 918 , 806 A.2d 1057 (2002).

2003Those factors include (1) the extent to which the misconduct was invited by defense conduct or ar gument, (2) the severity of the misconduct, (3) the frequency of the misconduct, (4) the centrality of the misconduct to the critical issues in the case, (5) the strength of the curative measures adopted and (6) the strength of the state’s case.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stevenson, 70 Conn. App. 29, 33-34 , 797 A.2d 1 , cert. granted on other grounds, 261 Conn. 918 , 806 A.2d 1057 (2002).

22003–2003
State v. Forde green
conn · 1999
22001–2001
State v. Payne neutral
conn · 2001
22001–2001
State v. Forde green
connappct · 1999
2 sentences

2001To 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.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rivera, supra, 61 Conn. App. 769 -70; State v. Forde, 52 Conn. App. 159, 172 , 726 A.2d 132 , cert. denied, 248 Conn. 918 , 734 A.2d 567 (1999).

2001To 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.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rivera, supra, 61 Conn. App. 769 -70; State v. Forde, 52 Conn. App. 159, 172 , 726 A.2d 132 , cert. denied, 248 Conn. 918 , 734 A.2d 567 (1999).

22001–2001
State v. Payne green
connappct · 2001
22001–2001
State v. Aponte green
conn · 1999
22000–2000
State v. Aponte green
connappct · 1998
21999–2000
State v. Palmer green
conn · 1985
21988–1999
State v. Santiago green
connappct · 2013
12019–2019
State v. Dillard green
conn · 2001
12012–2012
State v. Dillard green
connappct · 2001
12012–2012
Miranda v. Arizona green
scotus · 1966
12009–2009
State v. Ayuso green
connappct · 2008
12008–2008
State v. Camacho green
conn · 2007
12008–2008
State v. Ayuso green
conn · 2008
12008–2008
State v. Acquin green
connsuperct · 1977
12007–2007
State v. McCleese green
conn · 2006
12006–2006
State v. Golding green
conn · 1989
12006–2006
State v. McCleese green
connappct · 2006
12006–2006

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. § 51-199 (11) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-134 (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