Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Stevensongreen2 sentences2009As review of a claim of prosecutorial impropriety is required under State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 572-73 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004), a Golding analysis is unnecessary. [6] To the extent that the dissent suggests that State v. Cassidy, 236 Conn. 112 , 672 A.2d 899 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 910 , 117 S.Ct. 273 , 136 L.Ed.2d 196 (1996), overruled in part by State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290, 296 , 755 A.2d 868 (2000), alters the prosecutorial impropriety analysis, we note that Cassidy explicitly was decided under the confrontation clause, rather than the due process basis traditionally employed in 2009As review of a claim of prosecutorial impropriety is required under State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 572-73 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004), a Golding analysis is unnecessary. [6] To the extent that the dissent suggests that State v. Cassidy, 236 Conn. 112 , 672 A.2d 899 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 910 , 117 S.Ct. 273 , 136 L.Ed.2d 196 (1996), overruled in part by State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290, 296 , 755 A.2d 868 (2000), alters the prosecutorial impropriety analysis, we note that Cassidy explicitly was decided under the confrontation clause, rather than the due process basis traditionally employed in | 2 | 4 |
Quint v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen2 sentences2024See Quint v. Com- missioner of Correction, 99 Conn. App. 395, 403 , 913 A.2d 1120 (2007). ‘‘This court need not remand the case for the trial court’s decision on [an] issue [however] . . . if it can be determined as a matter of law on the record before us. . . . 2024See Quint v. Com- missioner of Correction, 99 Conn. App. 395, 403 , 913 A.2d 1120 (2007). ‘‘This court need not remand the case for the trial court’s decision on [an] issue [however] . . . if it can be determined as a matter of law on the record before us. . . . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Goldinggreen2 sentences2018See State v. Golding , supra, 213 Conn. at 241 , 567 A.2d 823 ("once identified, unpreserved evidentiary claims masquerading as constitutional claims will be summarily dismissed"). 2 The defendant also claims that the prosecutor improperly referred to facts not in evidence during closing rebuttal argument. 2018See State v. Golding , supra, 213 Conn. at 241 , 567 A.2d 823 ("once identified, unpreserved evidentiary claims masquerading as constitutional claims will be summarily dismissed"). 2 The defendant also claims that the prosecutor improperly referred to facts not in evidence during closing rebuttal argument. | 1 | 1 |
State v. A. M.green2 sentences2018See State v. A.M. , 324 Conn. 190 , 198 n.2, 152 A.3d 49 (2016) ; State v. Payne , 303 Conn. 538 , 560, 34 A.3d 370 (2012). 2018See State v. A.M. , 324 Conn. 190 , 198 n.2, 152 A.3d 49 (2016) ; State v. Payne , 303 Conn. 538 , 560, 34 A.3d 370 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
State v. TRDgreen2 sentences2016See State v. T.R.D. , 286 Conn. 191 , 195, 942 A.2d 1000 (2008). 2016See State v. T.R.D. , 286 Conn. 191 , 195, 942 A.2d 1000 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Santiagogreen2 sentences2015See State v. Santiago, 269 Conn. 726, 742 , 850 A.2d 199 (2004) (‘‘it is the severity of the misconduct, considered in the context of the specific facts and circumstances of a particular case, as opposed to the intrinsic nature of the impropriety, that deter- mines whether an impropriety is evidentiary or of con- stitutional magnitude’’); accord State v. Gibson, 302 Conn. 653 , 663 n.4, 31 A.3d 346 (2011) (acknowledging that ‘‘there may be some overlap between the factors that the reviewing court considers when determining whether the prosecutor’s conduct was improper and those that it conside 2015See State v. Santiago, 269 Conn. 726, 742 , 850 A.2d 199 (2004) (‘‘it is the severity of the misconduct, considered in the context of the specific facts and circumstances of a particular case, as opposed to the intrinsic nature of the impropriety, that deter- mines whether an impropriety is evidentiary or of con- stitutional magnitude’’); accord State v. Gibson, 302 Conn. 653 , 663 n.4, 31 A.3d 346 (2011) (acknowledging that ‘‘there may be some overlap between the factors that the reviewing court considers when determining whether the prosecutor’s conduct was improper and those that it conside | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gibsongreen2 sentences2015See State v. Santiago, 269 Conn. 726, 742 , 850 A.2d 199 (2004) (‘‘it is the severity of the misconduct, considered in the context of the specific facts and circumstances of a particular case, as opposed to the intrinsic nature of the impropriety, that deter- mines whether an impropriety is evidentiary or of con- stitutional magnitude’’); accord State v. Gibson, 302 Conn. 653 , 663 n.4, 31 A.3d 346 (2011) (acknowledging that ‘‘there may be some overlap between the factors that the reviewing court considers when determining whether the prosecutor’s conduct was improper and those that it conside 2015See State v. Santiago, 269 Conn. 726, 742 , 850 A.2d 199 (2004) (‘‘it is the severity of the misconduct, considered in the context of the specific facts and circumstances of a particular case, as opposed to the intrinsic nature of the impropriety, that deter- mines whether an impropriety is evidentiary or of con- stitutional magnitude’’); accord State v. Gibson, 302 Conn. 653 , 663 n.4, 31 A.3d 346 (2011) (acknowledging that ‘‘there may be some overlap between the factors that the reviewing court considers when determining whether the prosecutor’s conduct was improper and those that it conside | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cassidygreen2 sentences2009As review of a claim of prosecutorial impropriety is required under State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 572-73 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004), a Golding analysis is unnecessary. [6] To the extent that the dissent suggests that State v. Cassidy, 236 Conn. 112 , 672 A.2d 899 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 910 , 117 S.Ct. 273 , 136 L.Ed.2d 196 (1996), overruled in part by State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290, 296 , 755 A.2d 868 (2000), alters the prosecutorial impropriety analysis, we note that Cassidy explicitly was decided under the confrontation clause, rather than the due process basis traditionally employed in 2009As review of a claim of prosecutorial impropriety is required under State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 572-73 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004), a Golding analysis is unnecessary. [6] To the extent that the dissent suggests that State v. Cassidy, 236 Conn. 112 , 672 A.2d 899 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 910 , 117 S.Ct. 273 , 136 L.Ed.2d 196 (1996), overruled in part by State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290, 296 , 755 A.2d 868 (2000), alters the prosecutorial impropriety analysis, we note that Cassidy explicitly was decided under the confrontation clause, rather than the due process basis traditionally employed in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robert H.green2 sentences2009Cf. State v. Robert H., 273 Conn. 56, 86 , 866 A.2d 1255 (2005) (“the state’s [claim on appeal] is not properly before this court because the state did not preserve it for appeal and the claim exceeds the scope of the certified question”). 21 We first articulated the “reasonable likelihood” standard for determining whether prosecutorial impropriety deprived the defendant of a fair trial in 2003 in State v. Thompson, supra, 266 Conn. 460 , and that standard has become well established in our prosecutorial impropriety case law. 2009Cf. State v. Robert H., 273 Conn. 56, 86 , 866 A.2d 1255 (2005) (“the state’s [claim on appeal] is not properly before this court because the state did not preserve it for appeal and the claim exceeds the scope of the certified question”). 21 We first articulated the “reasonable likelihood” standard for determining whether prosecutorial impropriety deprived the defendant of a fair trial in 2003 in State v. Thompson, supra, 266 Conn. 460 , and that standard has become well established in our prosecutorial impropriety case law. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tatum v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2024This court, however, has ‘‘rejected this argument on numerous occasions.’’ Tatum v. Com- missioner of Correction, 211 Conn. App. 42, 50 , 272 A.3d 218 (2022), rev’d in part on other grounds, 349 Conn. 733 , 322 A.3d 299 (2024). 2024This court, however, has ‘‘rejected this argument on numerous occasions.’’ Tatum v. Com- missioner of Correction, 211 Conn. App. 42 , 50, 272 A.3d 218 (2022), rev’d in part on other grounds, 349 Conn. 733 , 322 A.3d 299 (2024). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Tatum v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2024This court, however, has ‘‘rejected this argument on numerous occasions.’’ Tatum v. Com- missioner of Correction, 211 Conn. App. 42, 50 , 272 A.3d 218 (2022), rev’d in part on other grounds, 349 Conn. 733 , 322 A.3d 299 (2024). 2024This court, however, has ‘‘rejected this argument on numerous occasions.’’ Tatum v. Com- missioner of Correction, 211 Conn. App. 42 , 50, 272 A.3d 218 (2022), rev’d in part on other grounds, 349 Conn. 733 , 322 A.3d 299 (2024). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2011“An appellate court’s determination of whether any improper conduct by the prosecutor violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial is predicated on the factors established in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987). 2011“An appellate court’s determination of whether any improper conduct by the prosecutor violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial is predicated on the factors established in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987). | 2 | 2010–2011 |
State v. Dabate
green
1 sentence2025March 11, 2025 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 33 351 Conn. 428 MARCH, 2025 33 State v. Dabate must have been suppressed by the [s]tate, either [wil- fully] or inadvertently,’’ and (3) ‘‘prejudice must have ensued.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ortiz, supra, 280 Conn. 717 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Floyd
green
2 sentences2025Because the defendant concedes that he was not harmed by this failure to disclose, we need not analyze the prosecutor’s conduct with respect to Payette for purposes of a prosecutorial impropriety claim. 19 ‘‘The purpose of requiring the state to disclose impeachment evidence to a criminal defendant is to ensure that the jury knows the facts that might motivate a witness in giving testimony . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Floyd, 253 Conn. 700, 744 , 756 A.2d 799 (2000). 2025Because the defendant concedes that he was not harmed by this failure to disclose, we need not analyze the prosecutor’s conduct with respect to Payette for purposes of a prosecutorial impropriety claim. 19 ‘‘The purpose of requiring the state to disclose impeachment evidence to a criminal defendant is to ensure that the jury knows the facts that might motivate a witness in giving testimony . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Floyd, 253 Conn. 700, 744 , 756 A.2d 799 (2000). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Coney
green
2 sentences2025We must deter- mine ‘‘(1) whether [impropriety] occurred in the first instance; and (2) whether that [impropriety] deprived a defendant of his due process right to a fair trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Coney, 266 Conn. 787, 808 , 835 A.2d 977 (2003). 2025We must deter- mine ‘‘(1) whether [impropriety] occurred in the first instance; and (2) whether that [impropriety] deprived a defendant of his due process right to a fair trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Coney, 266 Conn. 787, 808 , 835 A.2d 977 (2003). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Payne
green
2 sentences2018See State v. A.M. , 324 Conn. 190 , 198 n.2, 152 A.3d 49 (2016) ; State v. Payne , 303 Conn. 538 , 560, 34 A.3d 370 (2012). 2018See State v. A.M. , 324 Conn. 190 , 198 n.2, 152 A.3d 49 (2016) ; State v. Payne , 303 Conn. 538 , 560, 34 A.3d 370 (2012). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Arroyo
green
2 sentences2017As we discussed in part I A of this opinion, the state presented "strong evidence that the [petitioner] had participated in the robbery." State v. Arroyo , supra, 292 Conn. at 575 , 973 A.2d 1254 . 2017As we discussed in part I A of this opinion, the state presented "strong evidence that the [petitioner] had participated in the robbery." State v. Arroyo , supra, 292 Conn. at 575 , 973 A.2d 1254 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Alexander
green
2 sentences2009Ed. 2d 196 (1996), overruled in part by State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290, 296 , 755 A.2d 868 (2000), alters the prosecutorial impropriety analysis, we note that Cassidy explicitly was decided under the confrontation clause, rather than the due process basis traditionally employed in cases of prosecutorial impropriety. 2009Ed. 2d 196 (1996), overruled in part by State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290, 296 , 755 A.2d 868 (2000), alters the prosecutorial impropriety analysis, we note that Cassidy explicitly was decided under the confrontation clause, rather than the due process basis traditionally employed in cases of prosecutorial impropriety. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Movsesian v. Hamer
green
1 sentence2009As review of a claim of prosecutorial impropriety is required under State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 572-73 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004), a Golding analysis is unnecessary. [6] To the extent that the dissent suggests that State v. Cassidy, 236 Conn. 112 , 672 A.2d 899 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 910 , 117 S.Ct. 273 , 136 L.Ed.2d 196 (1996), overruled in part by State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290, 296 , 755 A.2d 868 (2000), alters the prosecutorial impropriety analysis, we note that Cassidy explicitly was decided under the confrontation clause, rather than the due process basis traditionally employed in | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Bowersox v. Driscoll
green
1 sentence2009As review of a claim of prosecutorial impropriety is required under State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 572-73 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004), a Golding analysis is unnecessary. [6] To the extent that the dissent suggests that State v. Cassidy, 236 Conn. 112 , 672 A.2d 899 , cert. denied, 519 U.S. 910 , 117 S.Ct. 273 , 136 L.Ed.2d 196 (1996), overruled in part by State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290, 296 , 755 A.2d 868 (2000), alters the prosecutorial impropriety analysis, we note that Cassidy explicitly was decided under the confrontation clause, rather than the due process basis traditionally employed in | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Fauci
green
2 sentences2007Despite the defendant’s failure to object to these statements at trial, his claim is reviewable in light of State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23, 33 , 917 A.2d 978 (2007). 2007Despite the defendant’s failure to object to these statements at trial, his claim is reviewable in light of State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23, 33 , 917 A.2d 978 (2007). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.