98 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2026 6 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. SHAKIRgreen2 sentences2018See State v. Shakir , supra, 130 Conn. App. at 468 , 22 A.3d 1285 ("[T]he factual underpinnings for the minor complainant's not being produced to testify that might amount to good cause were not developed via evidence on the record demonstrating whether producing her would cause great difficulty, expense or risk of harm.... [W]e conclude that the record is inadequate for our review under Golding ."); see also State v. Polanco , supra, 165 Conn. App. at 576 , 140 A.3d 230 ("[T]he record is silent as to the state's reasons for not producing [the witness] at the probation revocation hearing and a 2018See State v. Shakir , supra, 130 Conn. App. at 468 , 22 A.3d 1285 ("[T]he factual underpinnings for the minor complainant's not being produced to testify that might amount to good cause were not developed via evidence on the record demonstrating whether producing her would cause great difficulty, expense or risk of harm.... [W]e conclude that the record is inadequate for our review under Golding ."); see also State v. Polanco , supra, 165 Conn. App. at 576 , 140 A.3d 230 ("[T]he record is silent as to the state's reasons for not producing [the witness] at the probation revocation hearing and a | 4 | 5 |
Gagnon v. Scarpellired2 sentences1996We have stated that: “A probation revocation hearing is not a stage of a criminal prosecution . . . .” (Citations omitted.) State v. Carey, 30 Conn. App. 346, 350 , 620 A.2d 201 (1993), rev’d on other grounds, 228 Conn. 487 , 636 A.2d 840 (1994), citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 , 93 S. Ct. 1756 , 36 L. 1996We have stated that: “A probation revocation hearing is not a stage of a criminal prosecution . . . .” (Citations omitted.) State v. Carey, 30 Conn. App. 346, 350 , 620 A.2d 201 (1993), rev’d on other grounds, 228 Conn. 487 , 636 A.2d 840 (1994), citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 , 93 S. Ct. 1756 , 36 L. | 2 | 10 |
State v. Stricklandgreen2 sentences1999We need not address that argument in light of our determination that the defendant is entitled to a new dispositional hearing because he was denied the opportunity personally to address the court at the original hearing. 18 In State v. Strickland, 243 Conn. 339, 354 , 703 A.2d 109 (1997), we held that what is now Practice Book § 43-10 (3), 19 which affords criminal defendants the right personally to address the court at the time of sentencing, also applies to the dispositional phase of a probation revocation hearing. 1999We need not address that argument in light of our determination that the defendant is entitled to a new dispositional hearing because he was denied the opportunity personally to address the court at the original hearing. 18 In State v. Strickland, 243 Conn. 339, 354 , 703 A.2d 109 (1997), we held that what is now Practice Book § 43-10 (3), 19 which affords criminal defendants the right personally to address the court at the time of sentencing, also applies to the dispositional phase of a probation revocation hearing. | 2 | 8 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2018In citing to cases involving criminal prosecutions hereafter, we acknowledge that a probation revocation hearing is not a criminal proceeding, but, instead, "akin to a civil proceeding"; State v. Davis , supra, 229 Conn. at 295 , 641 A.2d 370 ; and that "[a]lthough the revocation may be based upon criminal conduct, the constitution does not require that proof of such conduct be sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Benjamin , 299 Conn. 223 , 235, 9 A.3d 338 (2010) ; see also State v. Megos , 176 Conn. App. 133 , 139, 170 A.3d 120 (2017). 2018In citing to cases involving criminal prosecutions hereafter, we acknowledge that a probation revocation hearing is not a criminal proceeding, but, instead, "akin to a civil proceeding"; State v. Davis , supra, 229 Conn. at 295 , 641 A.2d 370 ; and that "[a]lthough the revocation may be based upon criminal conduct, the constitution does not require that proof of such conduct be sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Benjamin , 299 Conn. 223 , 235, 9 A.3d 338 (2010) ; see also State v. Megos , 176 Conn. App. 133 , 139, 170 A.3d 120 (2017). | 2 | 7 |
Morrissey v. Brewergreen2 sentences2013This court noted that a revocation of probation hearing is not part of a criminal proceeding and that the full panoply of rights accorded a criminal defendant do not pertain to a probation revocation hearing, quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 , 92 S. Ct. 2593 , 33 L. 2013This court noted that a revocation of probation hearing is not part of a criminal proceeding and that the full panoply of rights accorded a criminal defendant do not pertain to a probation revocation hearing, quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 , 92 S. Ct. 2593 , 33 L. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Polancogreen2 sentences2018See State v. Shakir , supra, 130 Conn. App. at 468 , 22 A.3d 1285 ("[T]he factual underpinnings for the minor complainant's not being produced to testify that might amount to good cause were not developed via evidence on the record demonstrating whether producing her would cause great difficulty, expense or risk of harm.... [W]e conclude that the record is inadequate for our review under Golding ."); see also State v. Polanco , supra, 165 Conn. App. at 576 , 140 A.3d 230 ("[T]he record is silent as to the state's reasons for not producing [the witness] at the probation revocation hearing and a 2018See State v. Shakir , supra, 130 Conn. App. at 468 , 22 A.3d 1285 ("[T]he factual underpinnings for the minor complainant's not being produced to testify that might amount to good cause were not developed via evidence on the record demonstrating whether producing her would cause great difficulty, expense or risk of harm.... [W]e conclude that the record is inadequate for our review under Golding ."); see also State v. Polanco , supra, 165 Conn. App. at 576 , 140 A.3d 230 ("[T]he record is silent as to the state's reasons for not producing [the witness] at the probation revocation hearing and a | 2 | 3 |
Dushay v. Southern Connecticut Hockey League, LLCgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., Dushay v. Southern Con- necticut Hockey League, LLC, 234 Conn. App. 609 , 612 n.3, 344 A.3d 175 (2025). ‘A reviewing court cannot go beyond the proper record before it in the determination of issues presented on appeal. . . . 2025See, e.g., Dushay v. Southern Connecticut Hockey League, LLC, 234 Conn. App. 609 , 612 n.3, A.3d (2025). ‘‘A reviewing court cannot go beyond the proper record before it in the determination of issues presented on appeal. . . . | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Hedmangreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Hanusiakgreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2018Criminal cases such as State v. Krijger , 313 Conn. 434 , 97 A.3d 946 (2014), 7 in which the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof applied, therefore are distinguishable from the present case, as "a probation violation need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence" and "need not be sufficient to sustain a violation of a criminal law." (Emphasis altered; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Megos , supra, 176 Conn. App. at 139 , 170 A.3d 120 ; see also State v. Smith , 207 Conn. 152 , 177, 540 A.2d 679 (1988) ("the authorities are virtually unanimous in concluding that the s 2018Criminal cases such as State v. Krijger , 313 Conn. 434 , 97 A.3d 946 (2014), 7 in which the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof applied, therefore are distinguishable from the present case, as "a probation violation need be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence" and "need not be sufficient to sustain a violation of a criminal law." (Emphasis altered; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Megos , supra, 176 Conn. App. at 139 , 170 A.3d 120 ; see also State v. Smith , 207 Conn. 152 , 177, 540 A.2d 679 (1988) ("the authorities are virtually unanimous in concluding that the s | 1 | 4 |
State v. Verdolinigreen2 sentences2010Hearsay evidence may be admitted in a probation revocation hearing if it is relevant, reliable and probative.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Verdolini, 76 Conn. App. 466, 471 , 819 A.2d 901 (2003). 2010Hearsay evidence may be admitted in a probation revocation hearing if it is relevant, reliable and probative.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Verdolini, 76 Conn. App. 466, 471 , 819 A.2d 901 (2003). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Baxtergreen2 sentences2000The court found that as far as the probation officers were concerned, the defendant was not living at the address he gave them, had not made a change of address with the probation officers and that the probation officers were unable to visit the defendant at his residence. “[ A] probation revocation hearing does not require all of the procedural components associated with an adversarial criminal proceeding.” State v. Smith, 207 Conn. 152, 176-77 , 540 A.2d 679 (1988). “[T]he purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to determine whether there are findings upon which a violation of a conditi 2000The court found that as far as the probation officers were concerned, the defendant was not living at the address he gave them, had not made a change of address with the probation officers and that the probation officers were unable to visit the defendant at his residence. “[ A] probation revocation hearing does not require all of the procedural components associated with an adversarial criminal proceeding.” State v. Smith, 207 Conn. 152, 176-77 , 540 A.2d 679 (1988). “[T]he purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to determine whether there are findings upon which a violation of a conditi | 1 | 4 |
State v. Careygreen2 sentences1999See State v. Carey, 30 Conn. App. 346, 355 [ 620 A.2d 201 ] (1993) (‘[w]hen the evidence adduced at a probation revocation hearing is insufficient, the defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal’), rev’d on other grounds, 228 Conn. 487 [ 636 A.2d 840 ] (1994); but see State v. McDowell, 242 Conn. 648, 653 [ 699 A.2d 987 ] (1997) (bar of double jeopardy attaches only to proceedings that are essentially criminal, and probation revocation hearings are not considered criminal proceedings).” Because we conclude, however, that the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the defend 1999See State v. Carey, 30 Conn. App. 346, 355 [ 620 A.2d 201 ] (1993) (‘[w]hen the evidence adduced at a probation revocation hearing is insufficient, the defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal’), rev’d on other grounds, 228 Conn. 487 [ 636 A.2d 840 ] (1994); but see State v. McDowell, 242 Conn. 648, 653 [ 699 A.2d 987 ] (1997) (bar of double jeopardy attaches only to proceedings that are essentially criminal, and probation revocation hearings are not considered criminal proceedings).” Because we conclude, however, that the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the defend | 1 | 3 |
State v. Careygreen2 sentences1999See State v. Carey, 30 Conn. App. 346, 355 [ 620 A.2d 201 ] (1993) (‘[w]hen the evidence adduced at a probation revocation hearing is insufficient, the defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal’), rev’d on other grounds, 228 Conn. 487 [ 636 A.2d 840 ] (1994); but see State v. McDowell, 242 Conn. 648, 653 [ 699 A.2d 987 ] (1997) (bar of double jeopardy attaches only to proceedings that are essentially criminal, and probation revocation hearings are not considered criminal proceedings).” Because we conclude, however, that the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the defend 1999See State v. Carey, 30 Conn. App. 346, 355 [ 620 A.2d 201 ] (1993) (‘[w]hen the evidence adduced at a probation revocation hearing is insufficient, the defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal’), rev’d on other grounds, 228 Conn. 487 [ 636 A.2d 840 ] (1994); but see State v. McDowell, 242 Conn. 648, 653 [ 699 A.2d 987 ] (1997) (bar of double jeopardy attaches only to proceedings that are essentially criminal, and probation revocation hearings are not considered criminal proceedings).” Because we conclude, however, that the evidence was sufficient to support the revocation of the defend | 1 | 3 |
State v. Durantgreen2 sentences2009The proof of the conduct at the hearing need not be sufficient to sustain a violation of a criminal law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 226, 892 A.2d 302 . 2008See State v. Durant, 94 Conn. App. 219 , 892 A.2d 302 (2006), aff'd, 281 Conn. 548 , 916 A.2d 2 (2007). | 1 | 3 |
State v. SHAKIRgreen2 sentences2018United States v. Williams , 443 F.3d 35 , 45 (2d Cir. 2006) ; see also United States v. Chin , 224 F.3d 121 , 124 (2d Cir. 2000)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Shakir , 130 Conn. App. 458 , 468, 22 A.3d 1285 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 931 , 28 A.3d 345 (2011). 11 This court recently concluded that a claim that a court denied a defendant's right to due process by admitting testimonial hearsay at a probation revocation hearing, without giving the defendant the opportunity to confront the declarant, was not preserved for appeal because the defendant, at the hearing, never argued to 2018United States v. Williams , 443 F.3d 35 , 45 (2d Cir. 2006) ; see also United States v. Chin , 224 F.3d 121 , 124 (2d Cir. 2000)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Shakir , 130 Conn. App. 458 , 468, 22 A.3d 1285 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 931 , 28 A.3d 345 (2011). 11 This court recently concluded that a claim that a court denied a defendant's right to due process by admitting testimonial hearsay at a probation revocation hearing, without giving the defendant the opportunity to confront the declarant, was not preserved for appeal because the defendant, at the hearing, never argued to | 1 | 2 |
State v. Megosgreen2 sentences2018In citing to cases involving criminal prosecutions hereafter, we acknowledge that a probation revocation hearing is not a criminal proceeding, but, instead, "akin to a civil proceeding"; State v. Davis , supra, 229 Conn. at 295 , 641 A.2d 370 ; and that "[a]lthough the revocation may be based upon criminal conduct, the constitution does not require that proof of such conduct be sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Benjamin , 299 Conn. 223 , 235, 9 A.3d 338 (2010) ; see also State v. Megos , 176 Conn. App. 133 , 139, 170 A.3d 120 (2017). 2018In citing to cases involving criminal prosecutions hereafter, we acknowledge that a probation revocation hearing is not a criminal proceeding, but, instead, "akin to a civil proceeding"; State v. Davis , supra, 229 Conn. at 295 , 641 A.2d 370 ; and that "[a]lthough the revocation may be based upon criminal conduct, the constitution does not require that proof of such conduct be sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Benjamin , 299 Conn. 223 , 235, 9 A.3d 338 (2010) ; see also State v. Megos , 176 Conn. App. 133 , 139, 170 A.3d 120 (2017). | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Durantgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Gradzikgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Kelleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sokoloff v. Saxbegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Piercegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Danielsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mayegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. McDowellgreen2 sentences2018The state, relying on State v. McDowell , 242 Conn. 648 , 653-54, 699 A.2d 987 (1997) (holding that principles of double jeopardy do not bar criminal trial on underlying charges after defendant found in violation of probation), argues that "even if the evidence was insufficient, the defendant should not be entitled to an acquittal, but rather a new probation revocation hearing because the double jeopardy bar attaches only to proceedings that are essentially criminal, and probation revocation hearings are not criminal proceedings." We are not persuaded. 2018The state, relying on State v. McDowell , 242 Conn. 648 , 653-54, 699 A.2d 987 (1997) (holding that principles of double jeopardy do not bar criminal trial on underlying charges after defendant found in violation of probation), argues that "even if the evidence was insufficient, the defendant should not be entitled to an acquittal, but rather a new probation revocation hearing because the double jeopardy bar attaches only to proceedings that are essentially criminal, and probation revocation hearings are not criminal proceedings." We are not persuaded. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Payne v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2001This court has held on several occasions that “[a] revocation of probation proceeding based upon a violation of a criminal law need not be deferred until after a disposition of the charges underlying the arrest because the purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to determine whether a defendant’s conduct constituted an act sufficient to support a revocation of probation; Payne v. Robinson, 10 Conn. App. 395 , 523 A.2d 917 (1987) [aff'd, 207 Conn. 565 , 541 A.2d 504 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 , 109 S. Ct. 242 , 102 L. 2001This court has held on several occasions that “[a] revocation of probation proceeding based upon a violation of a criminal law need not be deferred until after a disposition of the charges underlying the arrest because the purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to determine whether a defendant’s conduct constituted an act sufficient to support a revocation of probation; Payne v. Robinson, 10 Conn. App. 395 , 523 A.2d 917 (1987) [aff'd, 207 Conn. 565 , 541 A.2d 504 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 , 109 S. Ct. 242 , 102 L. | 13 | 1991–2018 |
Payne v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2001This court has held on several occasions that “[a] revocation of probation proceeding based upon a violation of a criminal law need not be deferred until after a disposition of the charges underlying the arrest because the purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to determine whether a defendant’s conduct constituted an act sufficient to support a revocation of probation; Payne v. Robinson, 10 Conn. App. 395 , 523 A.2d 917 (1987) [aff'd, 207 Conn. 565 , 541 A.2d 504 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 , 109 S. Ct. 242 , 102 L. 2001This court has held on several occasions that “[a] revocation of probation proceeding based upon a violation of a criminal law need not be deferred until after a disposition of the charges underlying the arrest because the purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to determine whether a defendant’s conduct constituted an act sufficient to support a revocation of probation; Payne v. Robinson, 10 Conn. App. 395 , 523 A.2d 917 (1987) [aff'd, 207 Conn. 565 , 541 A.2d 504 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 , 109 S. Ct. 242 , 102 L. | 8 | 1989–2018 |
Ochoa-Ochoa v. United States
green
2 sentences2001This court has held on several occasions that “[a] revocation of probation proceeding based upon a violation of a criminal law need not be deferred until after a disposition of the charges underlying the arrest because the purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to determine whether a defendant’s conduct constituted an act sufficient to support a revocation of probation; Payne v. Robinson, 10 Conn. App. 395 , 523 A.2d 917 (1987) [aff'd, 207 Conn. 565 , 541 A.2d 504 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 , 109 S. Ct. 242 , 102 L. 2000“A revocation of probation proceeding based upon a violation of a criminal law need not be deferred until after a disposition of the charges underlying the arrest because the purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to determine whether a defendant’s conduct constituted an act sufficient to support a revocation of probation; Payne v. Robinson, 10 Conn. App. 395 , 523 A.2d 917 (1987) [aff'd, 207 Conn. 565 , 541 A.2d 504 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 , 109 S. Ct. 242 , 102 L. | 8 | 1994–2018 |
Plyler v. Evatt
green
2 sentences2001Since the use of evidence in a probation revocation hearing falls outside the offending officer’s zone of primary interest . . . exclusion of such evidence will not significantly affect a police officer’s motivation in conducting a search.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 571 . 2001This court has held on several occasions that “[a] revocation of probation proceeding based upon a violation of a criminal law need not be deferred until after a disposition of the charges underlying the arrest because the purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to determine whether a defendant’s conduct constituted an act sufficient to support a revocation of probation; Payne v. Robinson, 10 Conn. App. 395 , 523 A.2d 917 (1987) [aff'd, 207 Conn. 565 , 541 A.2d 504 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 , 109 S. Ct. 242 , 102 L. | 8 | 1994–2018 |
Daloia v. Rose
green
2 sentences2001This court has held on several occasions that “[a] revocation of probation proceeding based upon a violation of a criminal law need not be deferred until after a disposition of the charges underlying the arrest because the purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to determine whether a defendant’s conduct constituted an act sufficient to support a revocation of probation; Payne v. Robinson, 10 Conn. App. 395 , 523 A.2d 917 (1987) [aff'd, 207 Conn. 565 , 541 A.2d 504 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 , 109 S. Ct. 242 , 102 L. 2000“A revocation of probation proceeding based upon a violation of a criminal law need not be deferred until after a disposition of the charges underlying the arrest because the purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to determine whether a defendant’s conduct constituted an act sufficient to support a revocation of probation; Payne v. Robinson, 10 Conn. App. 395 , 523 A.2d 917 (1987) [aff'd, 207 Conn. 565 , 541 A.2d 504 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 , 109 S. Ct. 242 , 102 L. | 8 | 1994–2018 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1999State v. Roberson, [supra, 165 Conn. 80 ]; State v. Johnson, 11 Conn. App. 251, 257 , 527 A.2d 250 (1987). 1999State v. Roberson, [supra, 165 Conn. 80 ]; State v. Johnson, 11 Conn. App. 251, 257 , 527 A.2d 250 (1987). | 5 | 1993–1999 |
State v. Crespo
green
2 sentences2025Syllabus In accordance with the Appellate Court’s decision in State v. Crespo ( 190 Conn. App. 639 ), the due process right to confront adverse witnesses at a probation revocation hearing is not absolute but, rather, is determined by application of a balancing test, pursuant to which a court weighs the defen- dant’s interest in confronting the witness against the state’s reasons for not producing the witness and the reliability of the proffered evidence. 2025Third, the defendant moved to vindicate his constitutional due process right to con- front Rainey at the probation revocation hearing, request- ing that, if the state did not produce Rainey to testify, the court should ‘‘engage in the balancing test required by State v. Crespo, [supra, 190 Conn. App. 639 ], and . . . find that the defendant’s right to confront [Rainey] outweighs the state’s reasons for not producing [Rainey] and preclude any testimony regarding the issue of iden- tification.’’ (Citation omitted.) The prosecutor opposed each of the defendant’s motions, arguing in relevant part | 3 | 2023–2025 |
State v. Rollins
green
2 sentences2015A fact is more probable than not when it is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rollins, 51 Conn. App. 478 , 481–82, 723 A.2d 817 (1999). ‘‘A revocation of probation proceeding based upon a violation of a criminal law need not be deferred until after a disposition of the charges underlying the arrest because the purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to determine whether a defendant’s conduct consti- tuted an act sufficient to support a revocation of proba- tion . . . rather than whether the defendant had, b 2015A fact is more probable than not when it is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rollins, 51 Conn. App. 478 , 481–82, 723 A.2d 817 (1999). ‘‘A revocation of probation proceeding based upon a violation of a criminal law need not be deferred until after a disposition of the charges underlying the arrest because the purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to determine whether a defendant’s conduct consti- tuted an act sufficient to support a revocation of proba- tion . . . rather than whether the defendant had, b | 3 | 2000–2015 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2009In State v. Davis, 29 Conn. App. 801, 811 , 618 A.2d 557 (1993), rev’d on other grounds, 229 Conn. 285 , 641 A.2d 370 (1994), this court stated that, during a probation revocation hearing, a court may consider “the types of information properly considered at an original sentencing hearing because a revocation hearing is merely a reconvention of the original sentencing .... 2009In State v. Davis, 29 Conn. App. 801, 811 , 618 A.2d 557 (1993), rev’d on other grounds, 229 Conn. 285 , 641 A.2d 370 (1994), this court stated that, during a probation revocation hearing, a court may consider “the types of information properly considered at an original sentencing hearing because a revocation hearing is merely a reconvention of the original sentencing .... | 3 | 1994–2009 |
State v. Golding
green
2 sentences1996The defendant argues that by expressing disbelief of the defendant’s testimony and defense counsel's argument, the trial court deprived him of his due process right to a probation revocation hearing before a “neutral hearing body.” 5 Because this claim was not preserved at trial, the defendant seeks review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and the plain error doctrine. 1996The defendant argues that by expressing disbelief of the defendant’s testimony and defense counsel's argument, the trial court deprived him of his due process right to a probation revocation hearing before a “neutral hearing body.” 5 Because this claim was not preserved at trial, the defendant seeks review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and the plain error doctrine. | 3 | 1995–2003 |
State v. Roberson
green
2 sentences1996State v. Roberson, 165 Conn. 73, 80 , 327 A.2d 556 (1973); State v. Johnson, 11 Conn. App. 251, 257 , 527 A.2d 250 (1987). 1996State v. Roberson, 165 Conn. 73, 80 , 327 A.2d 556 (1973); State v. Johnson, 11 Conn. App. 251, 257 , 527 A.2d 250 (1987). | 3 | 1993–1996 |
State v. Faraday
green
2 sentences2025A review of the cases defining the due process protec- tions afforded to a defendant at a probation revocation hearing, including Crespo, informs our abandonment analysis. ‘‘The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution requires that certain minimum procedural safeguards be observed in the process of revoking the conditional liberty cre- ated by probation.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Faraday, 268 Conn. 174, 182 , 842 A.2d 567 (2004). 2025A review of the cases defining the due process protec- tions afforded to a defendant at a probation revocation hearing, including Crespo, informs our abandonment analysis. ‘‘The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution requires that certain minimum procedural safeguards be observed in the process of revoking the conditional liberty cre- ated by probation.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Faraday, 268 Conn. 174, 182 , 842 A.2d 567 (2004). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
North Carolina v. Alford
green
2 sentences2020In this opinion the other judges concurred. 1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 , 91 S. Ct. 160 , 27 L. 2020In this opinion the other judges concurred. 1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 , 91 S. Ct. 160 , 27 L. | 2 | 2005–2020 |
| State v. Barnes neutral | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Smith v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2019Despite that panoply of requirements, a probation revocation hearing does not require all of the procedural components associated with an adverse criminal proceeding." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *651 State v. Barnes , 116 Conn. App. 76 , 79, 974 A.2d 815 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 925 , 980 A.2d 913 (2009) ; see also State v. Giovanni P. , supra, 155 Conn. App. at 334-35 , 110 A.3d 442 . 2018Despite that panoply of requirements, a probation revocation hearing does not require all of the procedural components associated with an adversarial criminal proceeding." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Barnes , 116 Conn. App. 76 , 79, 974 A.2d 815 , cert. denied, 293 Conn. 925 , 980 A.2d 913 (2009). | 2 | 2018–2019 |
| Connecticut v. Campbell green | 2 | 2018–2019 |
| Minnesota v. Murphy green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Lanagan green | 2 | 2011–2017 |
| State v. John M. green | 2 | 2006–2015 |
| Mitchell v. Commissioner of Correction green | 2 | 2006–2015 |
| State v. Gumbs neutral | 2 | 2006–2015 |
| State v. Jacobs green | 2 | 2001–2011 |
| State v. Young green | 2 | 2009–2010 |
| State v. Young green | 2 | 2009–2010 |
| State v. Strickland green | 2 | 1998–2002 |
| Fair v. Warden green | 2 | 1996–1998 |
| Kucher v. Massachusetts green | 2 | 1996–1998 |
| Gardner v. Alabama green | 2 | 1996–1998 |
| State v. White green | 2 | 1989–1994 |
| Vlahakis v. Illinois green | 2 | 1989–1994 |
| A. Wichman & Son v. Fox green | 2 | 1989–1994 |
| United States v. Calandra green | 2 | 1991–1991 |
| Sprague v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities green | 2 | 1987–1988 |
| Shelby Mutual Insurance v. Ghelfa green | 2 | 1987–1988 |
| State v. Cooley green | 2 | 1987–1988 |
| State v. Tucker green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Hazel v. Comm'r of Corr. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Blaine green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| McManners v. State green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Hooks green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.
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.