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.
16 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2019 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Deoliveria v. Ross & Roberts, Inc.green2 sentences1999See State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 513, 523 , 447 A.2d 396 (1982).” State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 175 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998). “ ‘The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 519 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997). 1998The probative value of such convictions, therefore, may often outweigh any prejudice engendered by their admission.” Id. “[T]he primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion . . . or where injustice appears to have been done.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 173 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998). “[I]t was 'within the discretion of the trial court to admit the | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sinchakgreen2 sentences1999See State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 513, 523 , 447 A.2d 396 (1982).” State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 175 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998). “ ‘The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 519 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997). 1998The probative value of such convictions, therefore, may often outweigh any prejudice engendered by their admission.” Id. “[T]he primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion . . . or where injustice appears to have been done.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 173 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998). “[I]t was 'within the discretion of the trial court to admit the | 1 | 2 |
State v. Madoregreen2 sentences1999See State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 513, 523 , 447 A.2d 396 (1982).” State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 175 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998). “ ‘The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 519 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997). 1999See State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 513, 523 , 447 A.2d 396 (1982).” State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 175 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998). “ ‘The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 519 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Fariagreen2 sentences1999See State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 513, 523 , 447 A.2d 396 (1982).” State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 175 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998). “ ‘The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 519 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997). 1999See State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 513, 523 , 447 A.2d 396 (1982).” State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 175 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998). “ ‘The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 519 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Nardinigreen2 sentences1999See State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 513, 523 , 447 A.2d 396 (1982).” State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 175 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998). “ ‘The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 519 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997). 1999See State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 513, 523 , 447 A.2d 396 (1982).” State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 175 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998). “ ‘The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 519 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Figueroa
green
2 sentences2016Furthermore, with respect to a trial court's ruling on a prejudicial-probative balancing test, "[w]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court's ruling." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Figueroa , 235 Conn. 145 , 162, 665 A.2d 63 (1995). 2016Furthermore, with respect to a trial court's ruling on a prejudicial-probative balancing test, "[w]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court's ruling." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Figueroa , 235 Conn. 145 , 162, 665 A.2d 63 (1995). | 3 | 1999–2016 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2014State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541 , 548–49, 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Crimi- nal Evidence (13th Ed.1972) § 241. [W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling. 2014State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541 , 548–49, 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Crimi- nal Evidence (13th Ed.1972) § 241. [W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling. | 3 | 1986–2014 |
State v. Mandrell
green
2 sentences2014State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541 , 548–49, 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Crimi- nal Evidence (13th Ed.1972) § 241. [W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling. 2014State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541 , 548–49, 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Crimi- nal Evidence (13th Ed.1972) § 241. [W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling. | 2 | 1995–2014 |
State v. Morowitz
green
2 sentences2014State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541 , 548–49, 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Crimi- nal Evidence (13th Ed.1972) § 241. [W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling. 2014State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541 , 548–49, 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Crimi- nal Evidence (13th Ed.1972) § 241. [W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling. | 2 | 1995–2014 |
State v. Shindell
green
2 sentences2014State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541 , 548–49, 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Crimi- nal Evidence (13th Ed.1972) § 241. [W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling. 2014State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541 , 548–49, 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Crimi- nal Evidence (13th Ed.1972) § 241. [W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling. | 2 | 1995–2014 |
State v. Tucker
green
2 sentences2014State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541 , 548–49, 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Crimi- nal Evidence (13th Ed.1972) § 241. [W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling. 2014State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541 , 548–49, 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Crimi- nal Evidence (13th Ed.1972) § 241. [W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling. | 2 | 1995–2014 |
State v. Vargas
green
2 sentences1999“We note that [bjecause of the difficulties inherent in this balancing process . . . every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the trial court’s ruling. ...” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Zoravali, 34 Conn. App. 428, 436 , 641 A.2d 796 , cert. denied, 230 Conn. 906 , 644 A.2d 921 (1994); State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 520 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997); see also State v. Figueroa, supra, 162 ; State v. Wild, supra, 463 . 1997“We note that [bjecause of the difficulties inherent in this balancing process . . . every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Zoravali, 34 Conn. App. 428, 436 , 641 A.2d 796 , cert. denied, 230 Conn. 960 , 644 A.2d 921 (1994); State v. Figueroa, supra, 162 . | 2 | 1997–1999 |
State v. Larkin
green
2 sentences1999“The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” State v. Figueroa, supra, 162 ; State v. Henry, 41 Conn. App. 169, 177 , 674 A.2d 862 (1996); State v. Larkin, 38 Conn. App. 125, 132 , 659 A.2d 1211 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 903 , 665 A.2d 904 (1995). 1997“The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” State v. Figueroa, supra, 162 ; State v. Henry, 41 Conn. App. 169, 177 , 674 A.2d 862 (1996); State v. Larkin, 38 Conn. App. 125, 132 , 659 A.2d 1211 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 903 , 665 A.2d 904 (1995). | 2 | 1997–1999 |
State v. Leroy
green
2 sentences1999“The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” State v. Figueroa, supra, 162 ; State v. Henry, 41 Conn. App. 169, 177 , 674 A.2d 862 (1996); State v. Larkin, 38 Conn. App. 125, 132 , 659 A.2d 1211 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 903 , 665 A.2d 904 (1995). 1997“The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” State v. Figueroa, supra, 162 ; State v. Henry, 41 Conn. App. 169, 177 , 674 A.2d 862 (1996); State v. Larkin, 38 Conn. App. 125, 132 , 659 A.2d 1211 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 903 , 665 A.2d 904 (1995). | 2 | 1997–1999 |
State v. Wargo
green
2 sentences1999“The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wargo, 53 Conn. App. 747, 761 , 731 A.2d 768 , cert. granted on other grounds, 250 Conn. 922 , 738 A.2d 662 (1999). 1999The court disallowed only the “intent to sell” aspect because the prejudice would outweigh the probative value of the evidence. “ ‘ “The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” ’ ” State v. Wargo, 53 Conn. App. 747, 761 , 731 A.2d 768 , cert. granted on other grounds, 250 Conn. 922 , 738 A.2d 662 (1999). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Vasquez
green
2 sentences1999“The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wargo, 53 Conn. App. 747, 761 , 731 A.2d 768 , cert. granted on other grounds, 250 Conn. 922 , 738 A.2d 662 (1999). 1999The court disallowed only the “intent to sell” aspect because the prejudice would outweigh the probative value of the evidence. “ ‘ “The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” ’ ” State v. Wargo, 53 Conn. App. 747, 761 , 731 A.2d 768 , cert. granted on other grounds, 250 Conn. 922 , 738 A.2d 662 (1999). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Zoravali
green
2 sentences1999“We note that [bjecause of the difficulties inherent in this balancing process . . . every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the trial court’s ruling. ...” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Zoravali, 34 Conn. App. 428, 436 , 641 A.2d 796 , cert. denied, 230 Conn. 906 , 644 A.2d 921 (1994); State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 520 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997); see also State v. Figueroa, supra, 162 ; State v. Wild, supra, 463 . 1999“We note that [bjecause of the difficulties inherent in this balancing process . . . every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the trial court’s ruling. ...” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Zoravali, 34 Conn. App. 428, 436 , 641 A.2d 796 , cert. denied, 230 Conn. 906 , 644 A.2d 921 (1994); State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 520 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997); see also State v. Figueroa, supra, 162 ; State v. Wild, supra, 463 . | 2 | 1997–1999 |
State v. Larkin
green
2 sentences1999“The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” State v. Figueroa, supra, 162 ; State v. Henry, 41 Conn. App. 169, 177 , 674 A.2d 862 (1996); State v. Larkin, 38 Conn. App. 125, 132 , 659 A.2d 1211 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 903 , 665 A.2d 904 (1995). 1999“The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” State v. Figueroa, supra, 162 ; State v. Henry, 41 Conn. App. 169, 177 , 674 A.2d 862 (1996); State v. Larkin, 38 Conn. App. 125, 132 , 659 A.2d 1211 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 903 , 665 A.2d 904 (1995). | 2 | 1997–1999 |
State v. Henry
green
2 sentences1999“The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” State v. Figueroa, supra, 162 ; State v. Henry, 41 Conn. App. 169, 177 , 674 A.2d 862 (1996); State v. Larkin, 38 Conn. App. 125, 132 , 659 A.2d 1211 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 903 , 665 A.2d 904 (1995). 1999“The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” State v. Figueroa, supra, 162 ; State v. Henry, 41 Conn. App. 169, 177 , 674 A.2d 862 (1996); State v. Larkin, 38 Conn. App. 125, 132 , 659 A.2d 1211 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 903 , 665 A.2d 904 (1995). | 2 | 1997–1999 |
State v. Wargo
green
2 sentences1999“The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wargo, 53 Conn. App. 747, 761 , 731 A.2d 768 , cert. granted on other grounds, 250 Conn. 922 , 738 A.2d 662 (1999). 1999“The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wargo, 53 Conn. App. 747, 761 , 731 A.2d 768 , cert. granted on other grounds, 250 Conn. 922 , 738 A.2d 662 (1999). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Estrella J.C.
green
2 sentences2019Furthermore, with respect to a trial court's ruling on a prejudicial-probative balancing test, [w]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court's ruling." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Estrella J.C. , 169 Conn. App. 56 , 99, 148 A.3d 594 (2016). 2019Furthermore, with respect to a trial court's ruling on a prejudicial-probative balancing test, [w]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court's ruling." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Estrella J.C. , 169 Conn. App. 56 , 99, 148 A.3d 594 (2016). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences2007The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Harris, 43 Conn. App. 830, 838 , 687 A.2d 544 (1996). 2007The primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Harris, 43 Conn. App. 830, 838 , 687 A.2d 544 (1996). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Servello
green
2 sentences2002We note that [bjecause of the difficulties inherent in this balancing process . . . every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Servello, 59 Conn. App. 362, 377 , 757 A.2d 36 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 940 , 761 A.2d 764 (2000). 2002We note that [bjecause of the difficulties inherent in this balancing process . . . every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Servello, 59 Conn. App. 362, 377 , 757 A.2d 36 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 940 , 761 A.2d 764 (2000). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Pospisil v. Pospisil
green
1 sentence2002We note that [bjecause of the difficulties inherent in this balancing process . . . every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Servello, 59 Conn. App. 362, 377 , 757 A.2d 36 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 940 , 761 A.2d 764 (2000). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Slimskey
green
1 sentence2002We note that [bjecause of the difficulties inherent in this balancing process . . . every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Servello, 59 Conn. App. 362, 377 , 757 A.2d 36 , cert. denied, 254 Conn. 940 , 761 A.2d 764 (2000). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. DeMasi
green
1 sentence1999“We note that [bjecause of the difficulties inherent in this balancing process . . . every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the trial court’s ruling. ...” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Zoravali, 34 Conn. App. 428, 436 , 641 A.2d 796 , cert. denied, 230 Conn. 906 , 644 A.2d 921 (1994); State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 520 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997); see also State v. Figueroa, supra, 162 ; State v. Wild, supra, 463 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Geyer
green
1 sentence1998The probative value of such convictions, therefore, may often outweigh any prejudice engendered by their admission.” Id. “[T]he primary responsibility for conducting the prejudicial-probative balancing test rests with the trial court, and its conclusion will be disturbed only for a manifest abuse of discretion . . . or where injustice appears to have been done.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 173 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998). “[I]t was 'within the discretion of the trial court to admit the | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Falby
green
2 sentences1997State v. Falby, 187 Conn. 6, 23 , 444 A.2d 213 (1982); State v. Jenkins, supra, 24 Conn. App. 336 -37. 1997State v. Falby, 187 Conn. 6, 23 , 444 A.2d 213 (1982); State v. Jenkins, supra, 24 Conn. App. 336 -37. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Sierra
green
2 sentences1995State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541, 548-49 , 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Evidence (13th Ed. 1972) § 241. “[W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” State v. Mooney, supra, 218 Conn. 131 ; State v. Sierra, 213 Conn. 422, 435 , 568 A.2d 448 (1990); State v. Braman, supra, 191 Conn. 677 ; State v. Jo 1995State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541, 548-49 , 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Evidence (13th Ed. 1972) § 241. “[W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” State v. Mooney, supra, 218 Conn. 131 ; State v. Sierra, 213 Conn. 422, 435 , 568 A.2d 448 (1990); State v. Braman, supra, 191 Conn. 677 ; State v. Jo | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Ryan
green
2 sentences1995State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541, 548-49 , 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Evidence (13th Ed. 1972) § 241. “[W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” State v. Mooney, supra, 218 Conn. 131 ; State v. Sierra, 213 Conn. 422, 435 , 568 A.2d 448 (1990); State v. Braman, supra, 191 Conn. 677 ; State v. Jo 1995State v. Morowitz, 200 Conn. 440, 446 , 512 A.2d 175 (1986); State v. Mandrell, 199 Conn. 146, 152 , 506 A.2d 100 (1986); State v. Shindell, 195 Conn. 128, 136 , 486 A.2d 637 (1985); State v. Johnson, 190 Conn. 541, 548-49 , 461 A.2d 981 (1983); State v. Tucker, 181 Conn. 406, 416 , 435 A.2d 986 (1980); 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Evidence (13th Ed. 1972) § 241. “[W]e will indulge in every reasonable presumption in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” State v. Mooney, supra, 218 Conn. 131 ; State v. Sierra, 213 Conn. 422, 435 , 568 A.2d 448 (1990); State v. Braman, supra, 191 Conn. 677 ; State v. Jo | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.