coconspirator exception in Connecticut

17 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2019 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 (13)

Case	Followed	Cited
United States v. Gilberto Pablo Alvarezgreen ca5 · 1978 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1990–1994 2 sentences 1994See United States v. Alvarez, 584 F.2d 694, 701 (5th Cir. 1978). 7 III Next, the defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for aiding sexual assault in the first degree. 1990See United States v. Alvarez, 584 F.2d 694, 701 (5th Cir. 1978).	2	2
Bourjaily v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1987 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1991–2019 2 sentences 2000In order to invoke the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, “[t]here must be evidence that there was a conspiracy involving the declarant and the nonoffering party, and that the statement was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 , 107 S. Ct. 2775 , 97 L. 2000In order to invoke the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, “[t]here must be evidence that there was a conspiracy involving the declarant and the nonoffering party, and that the statement was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 , 107 S. Ct. 2775 , 97 L.	1	3
State v. Vessichiogreen conn · 1985 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1989–2018 2 sentences 2018The defendant only later argued that the state had failed to satisfy the foundational requirements of State v. Vessichio , supra, 197 Conn. at 653 -60 , 500 A.2d 1311 , for the admission of Morrison's statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule. 2018The defendant only later argued that the state had failed to satisfy the foundational requirements of State v. Vessichio , supra, 197 Conn. at 653 -60 , 500 A.2d 1311 , for the admission of Morrison's statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule.	1	3
State v. Lawrencegreen conn · 2007 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2007–2012 2 sentences 2012As we previously indicated, the preponderance standard also is consistent with the standard used by courts in making other preliminary determinations of fact involving a defendant's constitutional rights, such as whether a confession was voluntary; State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141, 177 , 920 A.2d 236 (2007); State v. James, supra, 237 Conn. at 425-26 , 678 A.2d 1338 ; whether there was free and voluntary consent to a search; State v. Jenkins, 298 Conn. 209 , 249 n. 32, 3 A.3d 806 (2010); see also United States v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d 226, 230 (2d Cir.2004) ("[t]he government has the burden of pro 2012As we previously indicated, the preponderance standard also is consistent with the standard used by courts in making other preliminary determinations of fact involving a defendant's constitutional rights, such as whether a confession was voluntary; State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141, 177 , 920 A.2d 236 (2007); State v. James, supra, 237 Conn. at 425-26 , 678 A.2d 1338 ; whether there was free and voluntary consent to a search; State v. Jenkins, 298 Conn. 209 , 249 n. 32, 3 A.3d 806 (2010); see also United States v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d 226, 230 (2d Cir.2004) ("[t]he government has the burden of pro	1	2
Davis v. City of Roswellgreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1989–1992 2 sentences 1992II The defendants next claim that the trial court improperly admitted certain statements and lifestyle evidence of alleged coconspirators under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule without making an adequate preliminary finding, as required by State v. Vessichio, 197 Conn. 644 , 500 A.2d 1311 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1122 , 106 S. Ct. 1642 , 90 L. 1989Although the state concedes that Morales’ testimony was inadmissible under this exception because the statements were not made in furtherance of a conspiracy; see State v. Vessichio, 197 Conn. 644 , 500 A.2d 1311 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1122 , 106 S. Ct. 1642 , 90 L.	1	2
Wallace v. Herrongreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1989–1992 2 sentences 1992II The defendants next claim that the trial court improperly admitted certain statements and lifestyle evidence of alleged coconspirators under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule without making an adequate preliminary finding, as required by State v. Vessichio, 197 Conn. 644 , 500 A.2d 1311 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1122 , 106 S. Ct. 1642 , 90 L. 1992II The defendants next claim that the trial court improperly admitted certain statements and lifestyle evidence of alleged coconspirators under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule without making an adequate preliminary finding, as required by State v. Vessichio, 197 Conn. 644 , 500 A.2d 1311 , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1122 , 106 S. Ct. 1642 , 90 L.	1	2
State v. Fergusongreen conn · 2002 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018See State v. Ferguson , 260 Conn. 339 , 357-58, 796 A.2d 1118 (2002) ("[s]tatements made out of court by a party-opponent are universally deemed admissible when offered against him ... so long as they are relevant and material to issues in the case" [citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted] ). "[I]n Bruton , the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant is deprived of his rights under the confrontation clause when his codefendant's incriminating confession is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider that confession only against the codefend 2018See State v. Ferguson , 260 Conn. 339 , 357-58, 796 A.2d 1118 (2002) ("[s]tatements made out of court by a party-opponent are universally deemed admissible when offered against him ... so long as they are relevant and material to issues in the case" [citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted] ). "[I]n Bruton , the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant is deprived of his rights under the confrontation clause when his codefendant's incriminating confession is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider that confession only against the codefend	1	1
United States v. Romanus Isiofiagreen ca2 · 2004 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012As we previously indicated, the preponderance standard also is consistent with the standard used by courts in making other preliminary determinations of fact involving a defendant's constitutional rights, such as whether a confession was voluntary; State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141, 177 , 920 A.2d 236 (2007); State v. James, supra, 237 Conn. at 425-26 , 678 A.2d 1338 ; whether there was free and voluntary consent to a search; State v. Jenkins, 298 Conn. 209 , 249 n. 32, 3 A.3d 806 (2010); see also United States v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d 226, 230 (2d Cir.2004) ("[t]he government has the burden of pro	1	1
State v. Camachogreen conn · 2007 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012See State v. Camacho, 282 Conn. 328, 353-54 , 924 A.2d 99 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 956 , 128 S.Ct. 388 , 169 L.Ed.2d 273 (2007). 2012See State v. Camacho, 282 Conn. 328, 353-54 , 924 A.2d 99 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 956 , 128 S.Ct. 388 , 169 L.Ed.2d 273 (2007).	1	1
United States v. Juan Herrero Jose Guillermo Haro and Armando N. Martinezgreen ca7 · 1990 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000See, e.g., United States v. Shores, supra, 33 F.3d 444 -45; United States v. Mayberry, 896 F.2d 1117, 1121-22 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Herrero, 893 F.2d 1512, 1528 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 927 , 110 S. Ct. 2623 , 110 L.	1	1
United States v. Larry W. Mayberrygreen ca8 · 1990 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 1 sentence 2000See, e.g., United States v. Shores, supra, 33 F.3d 444 -45; United States v. Mayberry, 896 F.2d 1117, 1121-22 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Herrero, 893 F.2d 1512, 1528 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 927 , 110 S. Ct. 2623 , 110 L.	1	1
United States v. Darryl Vowiellgreen ca9 · 1989 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991	1	1
cluster 519968green ca1 · 1989 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991	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. Peeler green conn · 2004 2 sentences 2007The court must make its preliminary determination[s] by a fair preponderance of the evidence . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Peeler, 267 Conn. 611, 628 , 841 A.2d 181 (2004). 11 It is unclear from the testimony of Santos to whom exactly Lebel made the statements. 2005Although “[a] statement that merely discloses the existence of a conspiracy to a non-conspirator, that merely spills the beans, with no intention of recruiting the [nonconspirator] into the conspiracy does not further the conspiracy”; (internal quotation marks omitted) id., 629 ; “[t]he law does not require a conspirator to ask a third party expressly to do something to further the conspiracy in order for the statement to be admissible under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule. . . .	2	2005–2007
State v. Robertson green conn · 2000 2 sentences 2005Instead, [t]he standard to be applied is whether some reasonable basis exists for concluding that the statement furthered the conspiracy.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Robertson, 254 Conn. 739, 750 , 760 A.2d 82 (2000). 2005Instead, [t]he standard to be applied is whether some reasonable basis exists for concluding that the statement furthered the conspiracy.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Robertson, 254 Conn. 739, 750 , 760 A.2d 82 (2000).	2	2004–2005
State v. James green conn · 1996 2 sentences 2012As we previously indicated, the preponderance standard also is consistent with the standard used by courts in making other preliminary determinations of fact involving a defendant's constitutional rights, such as whether a confession was voluntary; State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141, 177 , 920 A.2d 236 (2007); State v. James, supra, 237 Conn. at 425-26 , 678 A.2d 1338 ; whether there was free and voluntary consent to a search; State v. Jenkins, 298 Conn. 209 , 249 n. 32, 3 A.3d 806 (2010); see also United States v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d 226, 230 (2d Cir.2004) ("[t]he government has the burden of pro 2012As we previously indicated, the preponderance standard also is consistent with the standard used by courts in making other preliminary determinations of fact involving a defendant's constitutional rights, such as whether a confession was voluntary; State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141, 177 , 920 A.2d 236 (2007); State v. James, supra, 237 Conn. at 425-26 , 678 A.2d 1338 ; whether there was free and voluntary consent to a search; State v. Jenkins, 298 Conn. 209 , 249 n. 32, 3 A.3d 806 (2010); see also United States v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d 226, 230 (2d Cir.2004) ("[t]he government has the burden of pro	1	2012–2012
State v. Jenkins green conn · 2010 2 sentences 2012As we previously indicated, the preponderance standard also is consistent with the standard used by courts in making other preliminary determinations of fact involving a defendant's constitutional rights, such as whether a confession was voluntary; State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141, 177 , 920 A.2d 236 (2007); State v. James, supra, 237 Conn. at 425-26 , 678 A.2d 1338 ; whether there was free and voluntary consent to a search; State v. Jenkins, 298 Conn. 209 , 249 n. 32, 3 A.3d 806 (2010); see also United States v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d 226, 230 (2d Cir.2004) ("[t]he government has the burden of pro 2012As we previously indicated, the preponderance standard also is consistent with the standard used by courts in making other preliminary determinations of fact involving a defendant's constitutional rights, such as whether a confession was voluntary; State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141, 177 , 920 A.2d 236 (2007); State v. James, supra, 237 Conn. at 425-26 , 678 A.2d 1338 ; whether there was free and voluntary consent to a search; State v. Jenkins, 298 Conn. 209 , 249 n. 32, 3 A.3d 806 (2010); see also United States v. Isiofia, 370 F.3d 226, 230 (2d Cir.2004) ("[t]he government has the burden of pro	1	2012–2012
Ohio v. Roberts red scotus · 1980 2 sentences 2010Moreover, because an out-of-court statement that is made by a declarant who is unable to testify and falls within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” does not violate the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment; Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L. 2010Moreover, because an out-of-court statement that is made by a declarant who is unable to testify and falls within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” does not violate the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment; Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L.	1	2010–2010
Echavarria v. National Grange Mutual Insurance green conn · 2005 2 sentences 2007Co., 275 Conn. 408, 419 , 880 A.2d 882 (2005) (“[W]e have consistently held that we do not render advisory opinions. . . . [W]here the question presented is purely academic, we must refuse to entertain the appeal.” [Internal quotation marks omitted.]). 21 Although the trial court initially admitted part of Martin’s testimony under the dual inculpatory statement exception to the hearsay rule, it later permitted her full testimony under the coconspirator exception, at which time she restated some of the facts to which she previously had testified in addition to testifying to new facts. 2007Co., 275 Conn. 408, 419 , 880 A.2d 882 (2005) (“[W]e have consistently held that we do not render advisory opinions. . . . [W]here the question presented is purely academic, we must refuse to entertain the appeal.” [Internal quotation marks omitted.]). 21 Although the trial court initially admitted part of Martin’s testimony under the dual inculpatory statement exception to the hearsay rule, it later permitted her full testimony under the coconspirator exception, at which time she restated some of the facts to which she previously had testified in addition to testifying to new facts.	1	2007–2007
State v. Schiappa green conn · 1999 2 sentences 2006We disagree. “[T]he question of whether a third party statement may be used against the defendant as an adoptive admission by silence is an evidentiary issue . . . .” (Citations omitted.) State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 164 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. 2006We disagree. “[T]he question of whether a third party statement may be used against the defendant as an adoptive admission by silence is an evidentiary issue . . . .” (Citations omitted.) State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 164 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L.	1	2006–2006
Stephen v. United States green scotus · 1999 1 sentence 2006We disagree. “[T]he question of whether a third party statement may be used against the defendant as an adoptive admission by silence is an evidentiary issue . . . .” (Citations omitted.) State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 164 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L.	1	2006–2006
Rentz v. Davis, Dir. Gen'l. green · 1922 1 sentence 2006We disagree. “[T]he question of whether a third party statement may be used against the defendant as an adoptive admission by silence is an evidentiary issue . . . .” (Citations omitted.) State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 164 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L.	1	2006–2006
United States v. Donald Louis Monroe green ca11 · 1989 2 sentences 2005Id. 2005Id., 1363 .	1	2005–2005
State v. Couture green conn · 1991 2 sentences 2001State v. Couture, 218 Conn. 309, 322 , 589 A.2d 343 (1991); State v. Jones, 60 Conn. App. 866, 878 , 761 A.2d 789 (2000), cert, denied, 255 Conn. 942 , 769 A.2d 59 (2001); Conn. Code Evid. § 8-3 (1) (D). 2001State v. Couture, 218 Conn. 309, 322 , 589 A.2d 343 (1991); State v. Jones, 60 Conn. App. 866, 878 , 761 A.2d 789 (2000), cert, denied, 255 Conn. 942 , 769 A.2d 59 (2001); Conn. Code Evid. § 8-3 (1) (D).	1	2001–2001
State v. Jones green conn · 2001 2 sentences 2001State v. Couture, 218 Conn. 309, 322 , 589 A.2d 343 (1991); State v. Jones, 60 Conn. App. 866, 878 , 761 A.2d 789 (2000), cert, denied, 255 Conn. 942 , 769 A.2d 59 (2001); Conn. Code Evid. § 8-3 (1) (D). 2001State v. Couture, 218 Conn. 309, 322 , 589 A.2d 343 (1991); State v. Jones, 60 Conn. App. 866, 878 , 761 A.2d 789 (2000), cert, denied, 255 Conn. 942 , 769 A.2d 59 (2001); Conn. Code Evid. § 8-3 (1) (D).	1	2001–2001
State v. Jones green connappct · 2000 2 sentences 2001State v. Couture, 218 Conn. 309, 322 , 589 A.2d 343 (1991); State v. Jones, 60 Conn. App. 866, 878 , 761 A.2d 789 (2000), cert, denied, 255 Conn. 942 , 769 A.2d 59 (2001); Conn. Code Evid. § 8-3 (1) (D). 2001State v. Couture, 218 Conn. 309, 322 , 589 A.2d 343 (1991); State v. Jones, 60 Conn. App. 866, 878 , 761 A.2d 789 (2000), cert, denied, 255 Conn. 942 , 769 A.2d 59 (2001); Conn. Code Evid. § 8-3 (1) (D).	1	2001–2001
Gardner v. Commissioner green scotus · 1990 1 sentence 2000See, e.g., United States v. Shores, supra, 33 F.3d 444 -45; United States v. Mayberry, 896 F.2d 1117, 1121-22 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Herrero, 893 F.2d 1512, 1528 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 927 , 110 S. Ct. 2623 , 110 L.	1	2000–2000
Alexander v. United States green scotus · 1990 1 sentence 2000See, e.g., United States v. Shores, supra, 33 F.3d 444 -45; United States v. Mayberry, 896 F.2d 1117, 1121-22 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Herrero, 893 F.2d 1512, 1528 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 927 , 110 S. Ct. 2623 , 110 L.	1	2000–2000
Herrero v. United States green scotus · 1990 1 sentence 2000See, e.g., United States v. Shores, supra, 33 F.3d 444 -45; United States v. Mayberry, 896 F.2d 1117, 1121-22 (8th Cir. 1990); United States v. Herrero, 893 F.2d 1512, 1528 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 927 , 110 S. Ct. 2623 , 110 L.	1	2000–2000
State v. Smith green conn · 1991 2 sentences 1992State v. Smith, 219 Conn. 160, 165 , 592 A.2d 382 (1991); State v. Harvey, 27 Conn. App. 171, 183 , 605 A.2d 563 (1992). 1992State v. Smith, 219 Conn. 160, 165 , 592 A.2d 382 (1991); State v. Harvey, 27 Conn. App. 171, 183 , 605 A.2d 563 (1992).	1	1992–1992
State v. Harvey green connappct · 1992 2 sentences 1992State v. Smith, 219 Conn. 160, 165 , 592 A.2d 382 (1991); State v. Harvey, 27 Conn. App. 171, 183 , 605 A.2d 563 (1992). 1992State v. Smith, 219 Conn. 160, 165 , 592 A.2d 382 (1991); State v. Harvey, 27 Conn. App. 171, 183 , 605 A.2d 563 (1992).	1	1992–1992
State v. Spencer green conn · 1986	1	1991–1991
State v. Pelletier green conn · 1989 2 sentences 1991State v. Spencer, 198 Conn. 506, 513 , 503 A.2d 1165 (1986)”; State v. Pelletier, 209 Conn. 564, 577 , 552 A.2d 805 (1989); see also Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 , 107 S. Ct. 2775 , 97 L. 1991State v. Spencer, 198 Conn. 506, 513 , 503 A.2d 1165 (1986)”; State v. Pelletier, 209 Conn. 564, 577 , 552 A.2d 805 (1989); see also Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 , 107 S. Ct. 2775 , 97 L.	1	1991–1991

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-48 (12) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-3 (8) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-8 (7) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a (6) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54c (5) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-6 (4) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-199 (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

IL 40 (1980–2025) CA 39 (1969–2025) NY 35 (1978–2025) CT 17 (1989–2019) TX 13 (1980–2015) NE 11 (1977–2024) WA 7 (1981–2014) MI 7 (1975–2026) FL 5 (1988–2011) WI 5 (1973–2005) NV 4 (1979–2014) DC 4 (1989–2009) PA 4 (2002–2022) KY 4 (2002–2010) MA 4 (1974–2015) NJ 3 (1979–2021) MD 3 (1980–2023) KS 3 (1993–2017) OR 2 (1982–1992) MO 2 (1980–1987) OK 2 (1987–1989) AL 2 (1992–2010) LA 2 (1975–1980)

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