propensity exception in Connecticut

2025See, e.g., State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 491 , 910 P.2d 635 (en banc) (‘Ari- zona courts have recognized another specific exception to the general rule: other bad acts involving ‘‘sexual aberration’’ are admissible to show the defendant’s pro- pensity to commit a similar crime’), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 854 , 117 S. Ct. 150 , 136 L.

2008See, e.g., State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 491 , 910 P.2d 635 (en banc) (“Arizona courts have recognized another specific exception to the general rule: other bad acts involving ‘sexual aberration’ are admissible to show the defendant’s propensity to commit a similar crime”), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 854 , 117 S. Ct. 150 , 136 L.

2025See, e.g., State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 491 , 910 P.2d 635 (en banc) (‘Ari- zona courts have recognized another specific exception to the general rule: other bad acts involving ‘‘sexual aberration’’ are admissible to show the defendant’s pro- pensity to commit a similar crime’), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 854 , 117 S. Ct. 150 , 136 L.

2008See, e.g., State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 491 , 910 P.2d 635 (en banc) (“Arizona courts have recognized another specific exception to the general rule: other bad acts involving ‘sexual aberration’ are admissible to show the defendant’s propensity to commit a similar crime”), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 854 , 117 S. Ct. 150 , 136 L.

2015Second, the probative value of such evidence must outweigh the prejudicial effect of the other crimes evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 161–62, 665 A.2d 63 (1995). ‘‘The first threshold for the use of evidence of other crimes or misconduct on the issue of identity is that the methods used be sufficiently unique to warrant a reasonable inference that the person who performed one misdeed also did the other. . . . [I]n proffering other crime evidence [t]o prove other like crimes by the accused so nearly identical in method as to

2015Second, the probative value of such evidence must outweigh the prejudicial effect of the other crimes evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145 , 161–62, 665 A.2d 63 (1995). ‘‘The first threshold for the use of evidence of other crimes or misconduct on the issue of identity is that the methods used be sufficiently unique to warrant a reasonable inference that the person who performed one misdeed also did the other. . . . [I]n proffering other crime evidence [t]o prove other like crimes by the accused so nearly identical in method as to

2021Nevertheless, in State v. Gupta, 297 Conn. 211 , 225 n.7, 998 A.2d 1085 (2010), overruled on other grounds by State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012), our Supreme Court made clear that, although in DeJesus it ‘‘changed the label of the exception’’ from the common plan or scheme exception to the propensity exception, it ‘‘did not change the parameters that such evi- dence must satisfy to be admissible. . . .

2021Nevertheless, in State v. Gupta, 297 Conn. 211 , 225 n.7, 998 A.2d 1085 (2010), overruled on other grounds by State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012), our Supreme Court made clear that, although in DeJesus it ‘‘changed the label of the exception’’ from the common plan or scheme exception to the propensity exception, it ‘‘did not change the parameters that such evi- dence must satisfy to be admissible. . . .

2018On review by this court, therefore, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the trial court's ruling.'' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Devon D. , 321 Conn. 656 , 666, 138 A.3d 849 (2016).

2018On review by this court, therefore, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the trial court's ruling.'' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Devon D. , 321 Conn. 656 , 666, 138 A.3d 849 (2016).

2015The first two Golding requirements involve whether the claim is reviewable, and the second two involve whether there was constitutional error requiring a new trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69 , 89–90, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.

2015The first two Golding requirements involve whether the claim is reviewable, and the second two involve whether there was constitutional error requiring a new trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69 , 89–90, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.

2015The first two Golding requirements involve whether the claim is reviewable, and the second two involve whether there was constitutional error requiring a new trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69 , 89–90, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.

2015The first two Golding requirements involve whether the claim is reviewable, and the second two involve whether there was constitutional error requiring a new trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69 , 89–90, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.

2008Accordingly, we conclude that "adequate protection against unfair prejudice . . . is afforded by the existing structures of our rules of evidence." State v. Aaron L., supra, at 824, 865 A.2d 1135 . [34] We clarify that the exception we adopt today, like the liberal standard pursuant to which uncharged misconduct evidence formerly was admitted under the common scheme or plan exception, applies to all sexual misconduct, regardless of the age of the victim. [35] The scope and contours of the propensity exception to the rule prohibiting the admission of uncharged misconduct that we adopt in this o

2008See, e.g., State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 491 , 910 P.2d 635 (en banc) ("Arizona courts have recognized another specific exception to the general rule: other bad acts involving `sexual aberration' are admissible to show the defendant's propensity to commit a similar crime"), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 854 , 117 S.Ct. 150 , 136 L.Ed.2d 96 (1996); Hamm v. State, 365 Ark. 647, 661 , 232 S.W.3d 463 (2006) (Hannah, C.J., dissenting) ("This [c]ourt has recognized a `pedophile exception' to rule 404[b], where the court has approved *78 allowing evidence of similar acts with the same or other children wh

2008See, e.g., State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 491 , 910 P.2d 635 (en banc) ("Arizona courts have recognized another specific exception to the general rule: other bad acts involving `sexual aberration' are admissible to show the defendant's propensity to commit a similar crime"), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 854 , 117 S.Ct. 150 , 136 L.Ed.2d 96 (1996); Hamm v. State, 365 Ark. 647, 661 , 232 S.W.3d 463 (2006) (Hannah, C.J., dissenting) ("This [c]ourt has recognized a `pedophile exception' to rule 404[b], where the court has approved *78 allowing evidence of similar acts with the same or other children wh

2007“Whether evidence of other misconduct is admissible depends on a two part test: (1) the evidence must be relevant and material to at least one of the circumstances encompassed by the exceptions to the propensity rule, and (2) the probative value of such evidence must outweigh the prejudicial effect.” State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 170 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998).

2007“Whether evidence of other misconduct is admissible depends on a two part test: (1) the evidence must be relevant and material to at least one of the circumstances encompassed by the exceptions to the propensity rule, and (2) the probative value of such evidence must outweigh the prejudicial effect.” State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 170 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998).

2007“Whether evidence of other misconduct is admissible depends on a two part test: (1) the evidence must be relevant and material to at least one of the circumstances encompassed by the exceptions to the propensity rule, and (2) the probative value of such evidence must outweigh the prejudicial effect.” State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 170 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998).

2007“Whether evidence of other misconduct is admissible depends on a two part test: (1) the evidence must be relevant and material to at least one of the circumstances encompassed by the exceptions to the propensity rule, and (2) the probative value of such evidence must outweigh the prejudicial effect.” State v. Faria, 47 Conn. App. 159, 170 , 703 A.2d 1149 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 965 , 707 A.2d 1266 (1998).

1997While recognizing that “it is a close call”; State v. Cooper, 227 Conn. 417, 426 , 630 A.2d 1043 (1993); we agree with the state because we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its broad discretion when it concluded that the evidence was relevant and material to at least one of the circumstances encompassed by the exceptions to the propensity rule.

1997While recognizing that “it is a close call”; State v. Cooper, 227 Conn. 417, 426 , 630 A.2d 1043 (1993); we agree with the state because we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its broad discretion when it concluded that the evidence was relevant and material to at least one of the circumstances encompassed by the exceptions to the propensity rule.

1997State v. Figueroa, supra, 235 Conn. 162 ; State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 519 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997).

1997State v. Figueroa, supra, 235 Conn. 162 ; State v. Madore, 45 Conn. App. 512, 519 , 696 A.2d 1293 (1997).