challenged portion instruction in Connecticut

13 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2016 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. Ebrongreen conn · 2009 · cited in 7 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2009–2016 2 sentences 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10	1	7
State v. Williamsgreen conn · 1987 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10	1	1
State v. Rodriguez-Romangreen conn · 2010 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10	1	1
State v. Prioleaugreen conn · 1995 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See, e.g., State v. Prioleau, 235 Conn. 274, 284 , 664 A.2d 743 (1995) (“[a]n improper instruction on a defense, like an improper instruction on an element of an offense, is of constitutional dimension” [internal quotation marks omitted]). 215 Recently, in State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 682 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009), our Supreme Court held that an appellant will not be deemed to have waived a claim of instructional error unless the record shows that he “actively induced the trial court to give the . . . instruction that he . . . challenges on appeal . . . .” Following Ebron , a party will have wai 2010See, e.g., State v. Prioleau, 235 Conn. 274, 284 , 664 A.2d 743 (1995) (“[a]n improper instruction on a defense, like an improper instruction on an element of an offense, is of constitutional dimension” [internal quotation marks omitted]). 215 Recently, in State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 682 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009), our Supreme Court held that an appellant will not be deemed to have waived a claim of instructional error unless the record shows that he “actively induced the trial court to give the . . . instruction that he . . . challenges on appeal . . . .” Following Ebron , a party will have wai	1	1
State v. Andersongreen conn · 1993 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003See State v. Anderson, 227 Conn. 518, 533 , 631 A.2d 1149 (1993) (nothing in subjective-objective test refers to “ ‘person of ordinary intelligence’ ”). 2003See State v. Anderson, 227 Conn. 518, 533 , 631 A.2d 1149 (1993) (nothing in subjective-objective test refers to “ ‘person of ordinary intelligence’ ”).	1	1
State v. Pinagreen conn · 1982 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L. 2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L.	1	1
State v. Delvallegreen conn · 1999 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000See State v. Delvalle, 250 Conn. 466, 473-76 , 736 A.2d 125 (1999) (prohibiting future use of charge that reasonable doubt is not “a doubt suggested by the ingenuity of counsel” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 168, 175 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. 2000See State v. Delvalle, 250 Conn. 466, 473-76 , 736 A.2d 125 (1999) (prohibiting future use of charge that reasonable doubt is not “a doubt suggested by the ingenuity of counsel” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 168, 175 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L.	1	1
State v. Schiappagreen conn · 1999 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000See State v. Delvalle, 250 Conn. 466, 473-76 , 736 A.2d 125 (1999) (prohibiting future use of charge that reasonable doubt is not “a doubt suggested by the ingenuity of counsel” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 168, 175 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. 2000See State v. Delvalle, 250 Conn. 466, 473-76 , 736 A.2d 125 (1999) (prohibiting future use of charge that reasonable doubt is not “a doubt suggested by the ingenuity of counsel” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 168, 175 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L.	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 (16)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Kitchens green conn · 2011 2 sentences 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10	1	2016–2016
State v. Madigosky green conn · 2009 2 sentences 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10	1	2016–2016
State v. Griggs green conn · 2008 2 sentences 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10	1	2016–2016
State v. Hargrove green kanctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2016App. 2d 522 , 548–49, 293 P.3d 787 (2013). 12 See, e.g., State v. Rodriguez-Roman, 297 Conn. 66, 86 , 3 A.3d 783 (2010) (unpreserved instructional claim was reviewable when ‘‘defense counsel generally acquiesced in the jury instructions but did not affirmatively request the instruction’’); State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 680 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009) (claim was reviewable ‘‘because the defendant, while acquiescing to the charge as given at trial, did not actively induce the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction’’), overruled in part by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 10	1	2016–2016
State v. Abraham green conn · 2004 1 sentence 2015For the challenged portion of the instruction pertaining to the burden of proof, see footnote 19 of this opinion. 12 The Criminal Jury Instructions Committee cited the Appellate Court’s decision in State v. Abraham, 84 Conn. App. 551 , 854 A.2d 89 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 938 , 861 A.2d 514 (2004), as authority for the pattern jury instruc- tion utilized by the trial court in this case.	1	2015–2015
State v. Abraham green connappct · 2004 2 sentences 2015For the challenged portion of the instruction pertaining to the burden of proof, see footnote 19 of this opinion. 12 The Criminal Jury Instructions Committee cited the Appellate Court’s decision in State v. Abraham, 84 Conn. App. 551 , 854 A.2d 89 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 938 , 861 A.2d 514 (2004), as authority for the pattern jury instruc- tion utilized by the trial court in this case. 2015For the challenged portion of the instruction pertaining to the burden of proof, see footnote 19 of this opinion. 12 The Criminal Jury Instructions Committee cited the Appellate Court’s decision in State v. Abraham, 84 Conn. App. 551 , 854 A.2d 89 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 938 , 861 A.2d 514 (2004), as authority for the pattern jury instruc- tion utilized by the trial court in this case.	1	2015–2015
Lind-Larsen v. Fleet National Bank of Connecticut green conn · 2004 1 sentence 2015For the challenged portion of the instruction pertaining to the burden of proof, see footnote 19 of this opinion. 12 The Criminal Jury Instructions Committee cited the Appellate Court’s decision in State v. Abraham, 84 Conn. App. 551 , 854 A.2d 89 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 938 , 861 A.2d 514 (2004), as authority for the pattern jury instruc- tion utilized by the trial court in this case.	1	2015–2015
State v. Jimenez green conn · 1994 2 sentences 2014State v. Jimenez, 228 Conn. 335, 341 , 636 A.2d 782 (1994). 2014State v. Jimenez, 228 Conn. 335, 341 , 636 A.2d 782 (1994).	1	2014–2014
State v. Foster green conn · 2009 2 sentences 2009In a recent case, State v. Foster, 293 Conn. 327, 339-42 , 977 A.2d 199 (2009), our Supreme Court considered whether a defendant had waived a claim of instructional error under procedural facts materially similar to those in the present case. 2009In a recent case, State v. Foster, 293 Conn. 327, 339-42 , 977 A.2d 199 (2009), our Supreme Court considered whether a defendant had waived a claim of instructional error under procedural facts materially similar to those in the present case.	1	2009–2009
State v. Aponte green conn · 2002 1 sentence 2003In the present case, however, as in Aponte , the court used permissive language, “may be inferred,” as to the intent to cause death. “[P]ermissive language tempers the challenged portion of the instruction and ensures that a reasonable jury will not interpret the charge in an unconstitutional manner.” Id., 521 .	1	2003–2003
Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. green scotus · 1981 1 sentence 2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L.	1	2002–2002
Yuen v. Internal Revenue Service green scotus · 1981 1 sentence 2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L.	1	2002–2002
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission green scotus · 1981 1 sentence 2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L.	1	2002–2002
State v. Stankowski green conn · 1981 2 sentences 2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L. 2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L.	1	2002–2002
Stephen v. United States green scotus · 1999 1 sentence 2000See State v. Delvalle, 250 Conn. 466, 473-76 , 736 A.2d 125 (1999) (prohibiting future use of charge that reasonable doubt is not “a doubt suggested by the ingenuity of counsel” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 168, 175 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L.	1	2000–2000
Rentz v. Davis, Dir. Gen'l. green · 1922 1 sentence 2000See State v. Delvalle, 250 Conn. 466, 473-76 , 736 A.2d 125 (1999) (prohibiting future use of charge that reasonable doubt is not “a doubt suggested by the ingenuity of counsel” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 168, 175 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L.	1	2000–2000

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-199 (4) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a (4) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-59 (4) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-19 (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

CA 18 (1958–2025) CT 13 (2000–2016) IN 7 (1991–2015) MA 5 (2012–2025) OK 3 (1939–1957) WA 2 (2017–2021)

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

Your account

Appearance