responsibility defense in Connecticut

16 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2020 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 (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Stevensongreen conn · 2004 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2011–2020 2 sentences 2020See State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 576 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004) (‘‘[w]e emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2020See State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 576 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004) (‘‘[w]e emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).	1	3
State v. Langstongreen conn · 2002 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1	1	1
Iovieno v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen conn · 2002 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1	1	1
Iovieno v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen connappct · 2001 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1	1	1
Braham v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen connappct · 2002 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1	1	1
Braham v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen conn · 2002 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1	1	1
Watch Hill Condominium, Inc. v. Van Eckgreen conn · 2002 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1	1	1
John Harris, Jr. v. United Statesgreen cadc · 1968 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003Nonetheless, in a case of serious and repeated prosecutorial misconduct . . . the trial court has an independent responsibility to intervene, even in the absence of an objection or motion by defense counsel.” State v. Williams, supra, 204 Conn. 549 ; see Harris v. United States, 402 F.2d 656, 657 (D.C.	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 (17)

Case	Cited	Years
Strickland v. Washington green scotus · 1984 2 sentences 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1 1992“Because it is primarily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appropriate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.	2	1992–2017
State v. Ceballos green conn · 2003 2 sentences 2016The petitioner cites to State v. Ceballos, 266 Conn. 364 , 832 A.2d 14 (2003): ‘‘We emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial . . . . 2016The petitioner cites to State v. Ceballos, 266 Conn. 364 , 832 A.2d 14 (2003): ‘‘We emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial . . . .	2	2011–2016
State v. Thompson green conn · 2003 2 sentences 2015We emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial impro- prieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 483 . 2015The trial court gave the general instruction to the jury not to consider the arguments of counsel as evidence. ‘‘In the absence of a showing that the jury failed or declined to follow the court’s instructions, we presume that it heeded them.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Id., 485 .	2	2004–2015
State v. Marrero green connappct · 2020 2 sentences 2020If counsel did not believe that the argument was improper at the time, it is difficult for this court, on review, to reach a contrary conclusion.’’ Id., 121–22. ‘‘We empha- size the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitt 2020If counsel did not believe that the argument was improper at the time, it is difficult for this court, on review, to reach a contrary conclusion.’’ Id., 121–22. ‘‘We empha- size the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitt	1	2020–2020
Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez green conn · 1992 2 sentences 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1	1	2017–2017
State v. Ramirez green conn · 2001 1 sentence 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1	1	2017–2017
Pinto v. Commissioner of Correction green conn · 2001 1 sentence 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1	1	2017–2017
Rivera v. Commissioner of Correction green connappct · 2001 2 sentences 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1 2017Because it is pri- marily the responsibility of defense counsel to advise the defendant of his right to testify and thereby to ensure that the right is protected, we believe the appro- priate vehicle for claims that the defendant’s right to testify was violated by defense counsel is [through] a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel [pursuant to] Strickland v. Washington, [supra] 466 U.S. 668 . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriquez, 222 Conn. 469, 476 , 610 A.2d 631 (1992); see also Braham v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 72 Conn. App. 1 , 12–1	1	2017–2017
State v. Ritrovato green conn · 2006 2 sentences 2009In State v. Ritrovato, 280 Conn. 36 , 905 A.2d 1079 (2006), the court commented: “We emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time. . . . 2009In State v. Ritrovato, 280 Conn. 36 , 905 A.2d 1079 (2006), the court commented: “We emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time. . . .	1	2009–2009
State v. Rouleau green conn · 1987 2 sentences 2008State v. Rouleau, 204 Conn. 240 , 249-50 n.12, 528 A.2d 343 (1987). 2008State v. Rouleau, 204 Conn. 240 , 249-50 n.12, 528 A.2d 343 (1987).	1	2008–2008
State v. Andrews green conn · 1999 2 sentences 2003We emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that “defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time.” State v. Andrews, 248 Conn. 1, 19-20 , 726 A.2d 104 (1999). 2003We emphasize the responsibility of defense counsel, at the very least, to object to perceived prosecutorial improprieties as they occur at trial, and we continue to adhere to the well established maxim that “defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s argument when it was made suggests that defense counsel did not believe that it was unfair in light of the record of the case at the time.” State v. Andrews, 248 Conn. 1, 19-20 , 726 A.2d 104 (1999).	1	2003–2003
State v. Dillard green conn · 2001 2 sentences 2003Moreover, as the Appellate Court has observed, defense counsel may elect not to object to arguments that he or she deems “marginally objectionable” for tactical reasons, namely, “because he or she does not want to draw the jury’s attention to it or because he or she wants to later refute that argument.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dillard, 66 Conn. App. 238, 249 , 784 A.2d 387 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 943 , 786 A.2d 431 (2001). 2003Moreover, as the Appellate Court has observed, defense counsel may elect not to object to arguments that he or she deems “marginally objectionable” for tactical reasons, namely, “because he or she does not want to draw the jury’s attention to it or because he or she wants to later refute that argument.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dillard, 66 Conn. App. 238, 249 , 784 A.2d 387 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 943 , 786 A.2d 431 (2001).	1	2003–2003
State v. Dillard green connappct · 2001 2 sentences 2003Moreover, as the Appellate Court has observed, defense counsel may elect not to object to arguments that he or she deems “marginally objectionable” for tactical reasons, namely, “because he or she does not want to draw the jury’s attention to it or because he or she wants to later refute that argument.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dillard, 66 Conn. App. 238, 249 , 784 A.2d 387 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 943 , 786 A.2d 431 (2001). 2003Moreover, as the Appellate Court has observed, defense counsel may elect not to object to arguments that he or she deems “marginally objectionable” for tactical reasons, namely, “because he or she does not want to draw the jury’s attention to it or because he or she wants to later refute that argument.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dillard, 66 Conn. App. 238, 249 , 784 A.2d 387 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 943 , 786 A.2d 431 (2001).	1	2003–2003
Figueroa v. C & S Ball Bearing green conn · 1996 1 sentence 2001Id.	1	2001–2001
Tanner v. Conservation Commission of Norwalk green connappct · 1988 2 sentences 1998The plaintiff argues, quoting Tanner v. Conservation Commission, 15 Conn. App. 336, 341 , 544 A.2d 258 (1988), that while an administrative agency is not required “to believe any of the witnesses, including expert witnesses ... it must not disregard the only expert evidence available on the issue when the commission members lack their own expertise or knowledge [on a specific issue].” (Citation omitted.) The plaintiff contends that it was not legal for the hearing officer to rely on his own special or expert knowledge, if he had any, concerning the issue of the BAC level. 1998The plaintiff argues, quoting Tanner v. Conservation Commission, 15 Conn. App. 336, 341 , 544 A.2d 258 (1988), that while an administrative agency is not required “to believe any of the witnesses, including expert witnesses ... it must not disregard the only expert evidence available on the issue when the commission members lack their own expertise or knowledge [on a specific issue].” (Citation omitted.) The plaintiff contends that it was not legal for the hearing officer to rely on his own special or expert knowledge, if he had any, concerning the issue of the BAC level.	1	1998–1998
State v. Brown green conn · 1995 1 sentence 1996Attorney Phillips testified that under State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502 (1995) the trial Judge had a responsibility to hold a hearing sua sponte into the allegation of juror misconduct.	1	1996–1996
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. green scotus · 1984 1 sentence 1992Ed. 2d 674 [reh. denied, 467 U.S. 1267 , 104 S. Ct. 3562 , 82 L.	1	1992–1992

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a (4) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-70 (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

IA 27 (1999–2025) IL 20 (1976–2020) TX 19 (1979–2022) CT 16 (1992–2020) CO 14 (1981–2016) NY 13 (1904–2016) IN 12 (1965–2011) FL 11 (1982–2022) CA 11 (1969–2021) MS 10 (2004–2021) MO 9 (1973–2021) OH 9 (1919–2023) OR 9 (1977–2025) AZ 9 (1974–2016) PA 7 (1977–2009) WA 7 (1999–2014) MI 6 (1903–2023) WI 6 (1968–2000) OK 6 (1974–1993) SD 5 (1992–2000) WY 4 (1987–2000) SC 4 (2009–2021) MA 4 (1990–2012) ME 4 (1974–1985) RI 4 (2001–2010) DC 4 (1979–2016) NJ 4 (1969–2021) MD 4 (1974–2020) AL 3 (1981–2011) ND 2 (1982–1982) LA 2 (2017–2024) NV 2 (1957–2020) VA 2 (1986–2003) UT 2 (1992–2021) NC 2 (1883–1994)

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