right to present defense in Connecticut

92 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1935–2025 5 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 (18)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Chasity Westgreen conn · 2005 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2006–2025 2 sentences 2009It follows, then, that the right to present a defense “does not include a right to present evidence that properly is excluded under the rules of evidence.” State v. Sun, 92 Conn. App. 618, 629 , 886 A.2d 1227 (2005); see also State v. West, 274 Conn. 605, 625 , 877 A.2d 787 (constitution does not require defendant be permitted to present “ ‘every piece of evidence he wishes’ ”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1049 , 126 S. Ct. 775 , 163 L. 2009It follows, then, that the right to present a defense “does not include a right to present evidence that properly is excluded under the rules of evidence.” State v. Sun, 92 Conn. App. 618, 629 , 886 A.2d 1227 (2005); see also State v. West, 274 Conn. 605, 625 , 877 A.2d 787 (constitution does not require defendant be permitted to present “ ‘every piece of evidence he wishes’ ”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1049 , 126 S. Ct. 775 , 163 L.	2	4
Lepsey v. United Statesgreen scotus · 2005 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2006–2025 2 sentences 2009It follows, then, that the right to present a defense “does not include a right to present evidence that properly is excluded under the rules of evidence.” State v. Sun, 92 Conn. App. 618, 629 , 886 A.2d 1227 (2005); see also State v. West, 274 Conn. 605, 625 , 877 A.2d 787 (constitution does not require defendant be permitted to present “ ‘every piece of evidence he wishes’ ”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1049 , 126 S. Ct. 775 , 163 L. 2006The sixth amendment . . . [guarantees] the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. West, 274 Conn. 605, 624 , 622 n.26, 877 A.2d 787 , cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1049 , 126 S. Ct. 775 , 163 L.	2	4
Barron-Torres v. United Statesgreen scotus · 2005 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2006–2025 2 sentences 2009It follows, then, that the right to present a defense “does not include a right to present evidence that properly is excluded under the rules of evidence.” State v. Sun, 92 Conn. App. 618, 629 , 886 A.2d 1227 (2005); see also State v. West, 274 Conn. 605, 625 , 877 A.2d 787 (constitution does not require defendant be permitted to present “ ‘every piece of evidence he wishes’ ”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1049 , 126 S. Ct. 775 , 163 L. 2006The sixth amendment . . . [guarantees] the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. West, 274 Conn. 605, 624 , 622 n.26, 877 A.2d 787 , cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1049 , 126 S. Ct. 775 , 163 L.	2	4
Price v. United Statesgreen scotus · 2005 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2006–2025 2 sentences 2009It follows, then, that the right to present a defense “does not include a right to present evidence that properly is excluded under the rules of evidence.” State v. Sun, 92 Conn. App. 618, 629 , 886 A.2d 1227 (2005); see also State v. West, 274 Conn. 605, 625 , 877 A.2d 787 (constitution does not require defendant be permitted to present “ ‘every piece of evidence he wishes’ ”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1049 , 126 S. Ct. 775 , 163 L. 2006The sixth amendment . . . [guarantees] the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. West, 274 Conn. 605, 624 , 622 n.26, 877 A.2d 787 , cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1049 , 126 S. Ct. 775 , 163 L.	2	4
Washington v. Texasgreen scotus · 1967 · cited in 14 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1987–2016 2 sentences 2016The defendant raises this claim for the first time on appeal and requests review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989).9 We conclude that the claim fails under the third prong of Golding; the defendant has not demon- strated a violation of a constitutional right and depriva- tion of a fair trial.10 ‘‘It is true that ‘[t]he right to offer the testimony of witnesses . . . is in plain terms the right to present a defense, [and] the right to present the defendant’s ver- sion of the facts . . . .’ Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S. Ct. 1920 , 18 L. 2016The defendant raises this claim for the first time on appeal and requests review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989).9 We conclude that the claim fails under the third prong of Golding; the defendant has not demon- strated a violation of a constitutional right and depriva- tion of a fair trial.10 ‘‘It is true that ‘[t]he right to offer the testimony of witnesses . . . is in plain terms the right to present a defense, [and] the right to present the defendant’s ver- sion of the facts . . . .’ Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S. Ct. 1920 , 18 L.	1	14
State v. Bovagreen conn · 1997 · cited in 4 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1998–2005 2 sentences 2005Even when the improper exclusion of defense evidence amounts to a denial of the right to present a defense; see State v. Bova, 240 Conn. 210, 236 , 690 A.2d 1370 (1997); thereby placing on the state the burden of proving the exclusion to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; State v. Cavell, 235 Conn. 711, 720 , 670 A.2d 261 (1996); a defendant, when claiming that a court’s ruling on relevance and admissibility was improper, bears the initial burden of demonstrating that that ruling was an abuse of discretion. 2005Even when the improper exclusion of defense evidence amounts to a denial of the right to present a defense; see State v. Bova, 240 Conn. 210, 236 , 690 A.2d 1370 (1997); thereby placing on the state the burden of proving the exclusion to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; State v. Cavell, 235 Conn. 711, 720 , 670 A.2d 261 (1996); a defendant, when claiming that a court’s ruling on relevance and admissibility was improper, bears the initial burden of demonstrating that that ruling was an abuse of discretion.	1	4
State v. Cavellgreen conn · 1996 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2002–2005 2 sentences 2005Even when the improper exclusion of defense evidence amounts to a denial of the right to present a defense; see State v. Bova, 240 Conn. 210, 236 , 690 A.2d 1370 (1997); thereby placing on the state the burden of proving the exclusion to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; State v. Cavell, 235 Conn. 711, 720 , 670 A.2d 261 (1996); a defendant, when claiming that a court’s ruling on relevance and admissibility was improper, bears the initial burden of demonstrating that that ruling was an abuse of discretion. 2005Even when the improper exclusion of defense evidence amounts to a denial of the right to present a defense; see State v. Bova, 240 Conn. 210, 236 , 690 A.2d 1370 (1997); thereby placing on the state the burden of proving the exclusion to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; State v. Cavell, 235 Conn. 711, 720 , 670 A.2d 261 (1996); a defendant, when claiming that a court’s ruling on relevance and admissibility was improper, bears the initial burden of demonstrating that that ruling was an abuse of discretion.	1	2
State v. Paynegreen conn · 2012 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021	1	1
State v. Faygreen conn · 2017 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018	1	1
Rhonda Williams, A/K/A Victoria Tribble v. Elaine Lord, Superintendent, Bedford Hills Correctional Facilitygreen ca2 · 1993 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017	1	1
State v. Apontegreen conn · 1999 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1
State v. Thomasgreen connappct · 2008 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1
State v. Thomasgreen conn · 2008 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1
John L. v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen conn · 2008 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1
United States v. Rastelligreen ca2 · 1989 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006	1	1
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernalgreen scotus · 1982 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006	1	1
State v. Ramosgreen conn · 2002 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
Hooks v. Stategreen del · 1980 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004	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 (62)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Cerreta green conn · 2002 2 sentences 2017"The sixth amendment right to compulsory process includes the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cerreta , 260 Conn. 251 , 260-61, 796 A.2d 1176 (2002). 2017"The sixth amendment right to compulsory process includes the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cerreta , 260 Conn. 251 , 260-61, 796 A.2d 1176 (2002).	12	2002–2017
State v. Carter green conn · 1994 2 sentences 2017Nonetheless, we have held that the right to present a defense is, essentially, "the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carter , 228 Conn. 412 , 422, 636 A.2d 821 (1994). 2017Nonetheless, we have held that the right to present a defense is, essentially, "the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carter , 228 Conn. 412 , 422, 636 A.2d 821 (1994).	8	1995–2017
Chambers v. Mississippi green scotus · 1973 2 sentences 1999Chambers v. Mississippi, [ 410 U.S. 284, 289-90 , 93 S. Ct. 1038 , 35 L. 1999Chambers v. Mississippi, [ 410 U.S. 284, 289-90 , 93 S. Ct. 1038 , 35 L.	7	1992–1999
State v. Golding green conn · 1989 2 sentences 2018As such, the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense was implicated by its exclusion." The defendant seeks review of the right to present a defense claim under State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 4 We will address in turn each of the four subclaims that constitute the present claim. 2018As such, the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense was implicated by its exclusion." The defendant seeks review of the right to present a defense claim under State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 4 We will address in turn each of the four subclaims that constitute the present claim.	5	2004–2018
State v. Hedge green conn · 2010 2 sentences 2018The defendant does not challenge the court's ruling that the statements by the victim's father and sister were inadmissible hearsay. "[T]he right of an accused to offer evidence of a person's character, past criminal convictions or other prior bad acts, in support of a third party culpability defense, also is compelled by the right to present a defense guaranteed by the sixth amendment, and, as a general matter, its use should be limited only by the rules relating to relevancy and balancing.... [T]he policies underlying" § 4-4 (a) [character evidence] and 4-5 (a) [prior misconduct evidence] of 2018The defendant does not challenge the court's ruling that the statements by the victim's father and sister were inadmissible hearsay. "[T]he right of an accused to offer evidence of a person's character, past criminal convictions or other prior bad acts, in support of a third party culpability defense, also is compelled by the right to present a defense guaranteed by the sixth amendment, and, as a general matter, its use should be limited only by the rules relating to relevancy and balancing.... [T]he policies underlying" § 4-4 (a) [character evidence] and 4-5 (a) [prior misconduct evidence] of	4	2011–2018
State v. Guzman green conn · 2009 2 sentences 2022Ed. 2d 47 (2002) (‘‘[a]lthough a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the [c]onstitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521 , 526–27, 973 A.2d 163 (‘‘[s]o long as the defendant is neither forced to exercise nor prevented from exercising his right to tes- tify, the right to present a defense is not burdened by the strategic choice or resulting adverse consequences’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 293 Con 2022Ed. 2d 47 (2002) (‘‘[a]lthough a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the [c]onstitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521 , 526–27, 973 A.2d 163 (‘‘[s]o long as the defendant is neither forced to exercise nor prevented from exercising his right to tes- tify, the right to present a defense is not burdened by the strategic choice or resulting adverse consequences’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 293 Con	3	2009–2022
State v. Genotti green conn · 1992 2 sentences 2002“The sixth amendment right to compulsory pro cess includes the ‘right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies.’ ” 8 State v. Genotti, 220 Conn. 796, 803-804 , 601 A.2d 1013 (1992), quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S. Ct. 1920 , 18 L. 2002“The sixth amendment right to compulsory pro cess includes the ‘right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies.’ ” 8 State v. Genotti, 220 Conn. 796, 803-804 , 601 A.2d 1013 (1992), quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S. Ct. 1920 , 18 L.	3	1994–2014
State v. Sandoval green conn · 2003 2 sentences 2005The sixth amendment . . . includes the right to offer the testimony of 85 witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sandoval, 263 Conn. 524, 541-42 , 821 A.2d 247 (2003). 2005The sixth amendment . . . includes the right to offer the testimony of 85 witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sandoval, 263 Conn. 524, 541-42 , 821 A.2d 247 (2003).	3	2003–2005
Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler neutral connappct · 2009 2 sentences 2022Ed. 2d 47 (2002) (‘‘[a]lthough a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the [c]onstitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521 , 526–27, 973 A.2d 163 (‘‘[s]o long as the defendant is neither forced to exercise nor prevented from exercising his right to tes- tify, the right to present a defense is not burdened by the strategic choice or resulting adverse consequences’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 293 Con 2022Ed. 2d 47 (2002) (‘‘[a]lthough a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the [c]onstitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521 , 526–27, 973 A.2d 163 (‘‘[s]o long as the defendant is neither forced to exercise nor prevented from exercising his right to tes- tify, the right to present a defense is not burdened by the strategic choice or resulting adverse consequences’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 293 Con	2	2022–2022
State of Connecticut v. Richard W. green conn · 2009 2 sentences 2022Ed. 2d 47 (2002) (‘‘[a]lthough a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the [c]onstitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521 , 526–27, 973 A.2d 163 (‘‘[s]o long as the defendant is neither forced to exercise nor prevented from exercising his right to tes- tify, the right to present a defense is not burdened by the strategic choice or resulting adverse consequences’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 293 Con 2022Ed. 2d 47 (2002) (‘‘[a]lthough a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the [c]onstitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521 , 526–27, 973 A.2d 163 (‘‘[s]o long as the defendant is neither forced to exercise nor prevented from exercising his right to tes- tify, the right to present a defense is not burdened by the strategic choice or resulting adverse consequences’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 293 Con	2	2022–2022
State v. Alexander neutral conn · 2009 2 sentences 2022Ed. 2d 47 (2002) (‘‘[a]lthough a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the [c]onstitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521 , 526–27, 973 A.2d 163 (‘‘[s]o long as the defendant is neither forced to exercise nor prevented from exercising his right to tes- tify, the right to present a defense is not burdened by the strategic choice or resulting adverse consequences’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 293 Con 2022Ed. 2d 47 (2002) (‘‘[a]lthough a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the [c]onstitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521 , 526–27, 973 A.2d 163 (‘‘[s]o long as the defendant is neither forced to exercise nor prevented from exercising his right to tes- tify, the right to present a defense is not burdened by the strategic choice or resulting adverse consequences’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 293 Con	2	2022–2022
Sakon v. Town of Glastonbury green conn · 2009 2 sentences 2022Ed. 2d 47 (2002) (‘‘[a]lthough a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the [c]onstitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521 , 526–27, 973 A.2d 163 (‘‘[s]o long as the defendant is neither forced to exercise nor prevented from exercising his right to tes- tify, the right to present a defense is not burdened by the strategic choice or resulting adverse consequences’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 293 Con 2022Ed. 2d 47 (2002) (‘‘[a]lthough a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the [c]onstitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521 , 526–27, 973 A.2d 163 (‘‘[s]o long as the defendant is neither forced to exercise nor prevented from exercising his right to tes- tify, the right to present a defense is not burdened by the strategic choice or resulting adverse consequences’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 293 Con	2	2022–2022
State v. Easton neutral connappct · 2008 2 sentences 2022Ed. 2d 47 (2002) (‘‘[a]lthough a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the [c]onstitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521 , 526–27, 973 A.2d 163 (‘‘[s]o long as the defendant is neither forced to exercise nor prevented from exercising his right to tes- tify, the right to present a defense is not burdened by the strategic choice or resulting adverse consequences’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 293 Con 2022Ed. 2d 47 (2002) (‘‘[a]lthough a defendant may have a right, even of constitutional dimensions, to follow whichever course he chooses, the [c]onstitution does not by that token always forbid requiring him to choose’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521 , 526–27, 973 A.2d 163 (‘‘[s]o long as the defendant is neither forced to exercise nor prevented from exercising his right to tes- tify, the right to present a defense is not burdened by the strategic choice or resulting adverse consequences’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 293 Con	2	2022–2022
State v. Decaro green conn · 2000 2 sentences 2021Although we recognize that the right of a defendant to present a defense is subject to appropriate supervision by the trial court in accordance with established rules of procedure and evidence . . . we are also mindful that the fair opportunity to establish a defense is a fundamental element of due process . . . and that our rules should not be applied mechanistically so as to restrict unreasonably that important right.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. DeCaro, 252 Conn. 229, 256 , 745 A.2d 800 (2000). ‘‘A [criminal] defendant has a constitutional right to pres- 2021Although we recognize that the right of a defendant to present a defense is subject to appropriate supervision by the trial court in accordance with established rules of procedure and evidence . . . we are also mindful that the fair opportunity to establish a defense is a fundamental element of due process . . . and that our rules should not be applied mechanistically so as to restrict unreasonably that important right.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. DeCaro, 252 Conn. 229, 256 , 745 A.2d 800 (2000). ‘‘A [criminal] defendant has a constitutional right to pres-	2	2002–2021
State v. TOMAS D. green conn · 2010 2 sentences 2021When defense evidence is excluded, such exclusion may give rise to a claim of denial of the right to present a defense.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Tomas D., 296 Conn. 476, 497 , 995 A.2d 583 (2010), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012). 2021When defense evidence is excluded, such exclusion may give rise to a claim of denial of the right to present a defense.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Tomas D., 296 Conn. 476, 497 , 995 A.2d 583 (2010), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012).	2	2012–2021
Rock v. Arkansas green scotus · 1987 2 sentences 2015The defendant’s right to present a defense is not absolute, however; ‘‘[t]he right may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 55 , 107 S. Ct. 2704 , 97 L. 2015The defendant’s right to present a defense is not absolute, however; ‘‘[t]he right may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 55 , 107 S. Ct. 2704 , 97 L.	2	2004–2015
In Re Clay green scotus · 2004 2 sentences 2014Although exclu- sionary rules of evidence cannot be applied mechanistically to deprive a defendant of his rights, the constitution does not require that a defendant be permitted to present every piece of evidence he wishes.’’ (Citation omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363 , 382–83, 838 A.2d 186 , cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S. Ct. 2113 , 158 L. 2005The sixth amendment . . . [guarantees] the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the [court] so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363, 382 , 838 A.2d 186 , cert, denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S. Ct. 2113 , 158 L.	2	2005–2014
Coleman v. United States green scotus · 2004 2 sentences 2014Although exclu- sionary rules of evidence cannot be applied mechanistically to deprive a defendant of his rights, the constitution does not require that a defendant be permitted to present every piece of evidence he wishes.’’ (Citation omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363 , 382–83, 838 A.2d 186 , cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S. Ct. 2113 , 158 L. 2005The sixth amendment . . . [guarantees] the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the [court] so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363, 382 , 838 A.2d 186 , cert, denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S. Ct. 2113 , 158 L.	2	2005–2014
Villegas-Miranda v. United States green scotus · 2004 2 sentences 2014Although exclu- sionary rules of evidence cannot be applied mechanistically to deprive a defendant of his rights, the constitution does not require that a defendant be permitted to present every piece of evidence he wishes.’’ (Citation omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363 , 382–83, 838 A.2d 186 , cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S. Ct. 2113 , 158 L. 2005The sixth amendment . . . [guarantees] the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the [court] so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363, 382 , 838 A.2d 186 , cert, denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S. Ct. 2113 , 158 L.	2	2005–2014
State v. Saunders green conn · 2004 2 sentences 2005The sixth amendment . . . [guarantees] the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the [court] so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363, 382 , 838 A.2d 186 , cert, denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S. Ct. 2113 , 158 L. 2005The sixth amendment . . . [guarantees] the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the [court] so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Saunders, 267 Conn. 363, 382 , 838 A.2d 186 , cert, denied, 541 U.S. 1036 , 124 S. Ct. 2113 , 158 L.	2	2005–2014
State v. Eagles green connappct · 2002 2 sentences 2008A defendant, therefore, may introduce only relevant evidence, and, if the proffered evidence is not relevant, its exclusion is proper and the defendant’s right is not violated.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eagles, 74 Conn. App. 332, 335 , 812 A.2d 124 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 953 , 818 A.2d 781 (2003). “[A defendant has] the right to present a defense [and] the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cerreta, 260 Conn. 251, 261 2008A defendant, therefore, may introduce only relevant evidence, and, if the proffered evidence is not relevant, its exclusion is proper and the defendant’s right is not violated.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eagles, 74 Conn. App. 332, 335 , 812 A.2d 124 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 953 , 818 A.2d 781 (2003). “[A defendant has] the right to present a defense [and] the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cerreta, 260 Conn. 251, 261	2	2006–2008
State v. McColl green conn · 2003 2 sentences 2008A defendant, therefore, may introduce only relevant evidence, and, if the proffered evidence is not relevant, its exclusion is proper and the defendant’s right is not violated.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eagles, 74 Conn. App. 332, 335 , 812 A.2d 124 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 953 , 818 A.2d 781 (2003). “[A defendant has] the right to present a defense [and] the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cerreta, 260 Conn. 251, 261 2006A defendant, therefore, may introduce only relevant evidence, and, if the proffered evidence is not relevant, its exclusion is proper and the defendant's right is not *698 violated." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eagles, 74 Conn.App. 332, 335 , 812 A.2d 124 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 953 , 818 A.2d 781 (2003). "[A defendant has] the right to present a defense [and] the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cerreta, 260 Conn. 251,	2	2006–2008
Presnick v. Goldblatt green conn · 2003 2 sentences 2008A defendant, therefore, may introduce only relevant evidence, and, if the proffered evidence is not relevant, its exclusion is proper and the defendant’s right is not violated.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eagles, 74 Conn. App. 332, 335 , 812 A.2d 124 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 953 , 818 A.2d 781 (2003). “[A defendant has] the right to present a defense [and] the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cerreta, 260 Conn. 251, 261 2006A defendant, therefore, may introduce only relevant evidence, and, if the proffered evidence is not relevant, its exclusion is proper and the defendant's right is not *698 violated." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eagles, 74 Conn.App. 332, 335 , 812 A.2d 124 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 953 , 818 A.2d 781 (2003). "[A defendant has] the right to present a defense [and] the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cerreta, 260 Conn. 251,	2	2006–2008
State v. Williams green conn · 2001	2	2004–2005
Segal v. Segal green conn · 2001	2	2004–2005
State v. Williams green connappct · 2001	2	2004–2005
Perez v. Minore neutral connappct · 2014	1	2020–2020
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Lorson neutral conn · 2018	1	2019–2019
State v. Jackson green conn · 2018	1	2019–2019
State v. Jackson green connappct · 2018	1	2019–2019
State v. Brunetti green conn · 2006	1	2018–2018
Brunetti v. Connecticut green scotus · 2007	1	2018–2018
State v. Osimanti green conn · 2010	1	2015–2015
Ellis v. Emery green ca9 · 2006	1	2015–2015
State v. Reeves green connappct · 2010	1	2015–2015
State v. Carpenter green conn · 2005	1	2015–2015
State v. Andrews green connappct · 2007	1	2013–2013
State v. Estrella green conn · 2006	1	2013–2013
State v. Davis green conn · 2010	1	2013–2013
State v. Andrews green conn · 2007	1	2013–2013

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-199 (24) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a (23) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-21 (19) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-48 (19) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-70 (19) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-59 (12) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-49 (11) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86e (11) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 (10) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3 (10) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-3 (10) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-134 (9)

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 205 (1928–2026) MI 199 (1936–2026) WA 188 (1927–2026) TX 118 (1974–2026) NY 106 (1891–2026) TN 102 (2000–2026) CT 92 (1935–2025) IL 87 (1949–2025) LA 77 (1959–2026) WI 47 (1988–2026) OH 46 (1979–2026) KS 41 (1905–2025) IN 41 (1952–2024) MN 37 (1988–2026) CO 31 (1894–2026) MA 24 (1978–2025) IA 23 (1992–2025) DC 20 (1979–2015) ID 19 (1978–2025) KY 18 (1924–2025) SC 15 (1986–2023) MD 15 (1977–2022) NC 14 (1976–2014) OR 13 (1982–2026) NM 11 (1988–2024) AL 11 (1896–2002) OK 10 (1998–2025) HI 10 (1936–2023) AZ 10 (1976–2022) PA 9 (1919–2025) WY 7 (1937–2025) NJ 7 (1988–2026) MO 7 (1932–2011) RI 7 (1981–2014) VT 6 (1983–2025) MT 5 (1935–2025) NE 5 (1989–2020) AK 5 (1997–2019) WV 4 (1987–2018) FL 4 (1982–2024) MS 4 (2006–2022) VA 4 (1985–2017) ND 3 (1980–2001) SD 3 (2009–2025) AR 3 (1922–1941) GA 3 (1998–2019) NH 2 (1985–2012) UT 2 (2014–2018) ME 2 (1983–2019) DE 2 (1989–2019)

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