highest legal standard in Connecticut

2022As we have explained, ‘‘[t]he clear and convincing standard of proof is substantially greater than the usual civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence, but less than the highest legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 745, 794 , 700 A.2d 1108 (1997).

2022As we have explained, ‘‘[t]he clear and convincing standard of proof is substantially greater than the usual civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence, but less than the highest legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 745, 794 , 700 A.2d 1108 (1997).

2014It ‘is sustained if the evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist.’ ” 9 (Emphasis in original.) Id., 794 , quoting State v. Bonello, 210 Conn. 51, 66 , 554 A.2d 277 , cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1082 , 109 S. Ct. 2103 , 104 L.

2014It ‘is sustained if the evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist.’ ” 9 (Emphasis in original.) Id., 794 , quoting State v. Bonello, 210 Conn. 51, 66 , 554 A.2d 277 , cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1082 , 109 S. Ct. 2103 , 104 L.

2014It ‘is sustained if the evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist.’ ” 9 (Emphasis in original.) Id., 794 , quoting State v. Bonello, 210 Conn. 51, 66 , 554 A.2d 277 , cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1082 , 109 S. Ct. 2103 , 104 L.

2014It ‘is sustained if the evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist.’ ” 9 (Emphasis in original.) Id., 794 , quoting State v. Bonello, 210 Conn. 51, 66 , 554 A.2d 277 , cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1082 , 109 S. Ct. 2103 , 104 L.

2014It ‘is sustained if the evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist.’ ” 9 (Emphasis in original.) Id., 794 , quoting State v. Bonello, 210 Conn. 51, 66 , 554 A.2d 277 , cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1082 , 109 S. Ct. 2103 , 104 L.

2003Clear and convincing evidence must "induce in the mind of a trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist." State v. Bonello, 210 Conn. 51 at 66 , cert. den. 490 U.S. 1082 , 109 S.Ct. 2103 , 104 L.Ed.2d 664 (1989).

2015Although the standard of proof necessary for such a determination is clear and convincing evidence; see In re Christina M., 90 Conn. App. 565, 583 , 877 A.2d 941 (2005) (legisla- ture’s choice of proof by clear and convincing evidence in termination of parental rights proceedings is consistent with state and federal constitutional mandates), aff’d, 280 Conn. 474 , 908 A.2d 1073 (2006); the court’s use of this higher standard of proof could not prejudice the respondent. ‘‘The clear and convincing standard of proof is substantially greater than the usual civil standard of a preponderance of the

2015Although the standard of proof necessary for such a determination is clear and convincing evidence; see In re Christina M., 90 Conn. App. 565, 583 , 877 A.2d 941 (2005) (legisla- ture’s choice of proof by clear and convincing evidence in termination of parental rights proceedings is consistent with state and federal constitutional mandates), aff’d, 280 Conn. 474 , 908 A.2d 1073 (2006); the court’s use of this higher standard of proof could not prejudice the respondent. ‘‘The clear and convincing standard of proof is substantially greater than the usual civil standard of a preponderance of the

2016In affirming the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court not only "decline[d] to speculate as to why Bryant invoked his fifth amendment right not to testify" but also held that the court did not abuse its discretion by "concluding that Bryant's account, while sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible, 'is absent any genuine corroboration ... lacks credibility, and therefore, would not produce a different result in a new trial.' " Id., 500-501 , 991 A.2d 414 . 16 "The clear and convincing standard of proof is substantially greater than the usual civil standard of a preponderance of the eviden

2016In affirming the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court not only "decline[d] to speculate as to why Bryant invoked his fifth amendment right not to testify" but also held that the court did not abuse its discretion by "concluding that Bryant's account, while sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible, 'is absent any genuine corroboration ... lacks credibility, and therefore, would not produce a different result in a new trial.' " Id., 500-501 , 991 A.2d 414 . 16 "The clear and convincing standard of proof is substantially greater than the usual civil standard of a preponderance of the eviden

2016It is axiomatic that "[w]e are not required to review claims that are inadequately briefed." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Brianna L., 139 Conn.App. 239 , 250, 55 A.3d 572 (2012). 11 "The clear and convincing standard of proof is substantially greater than the usual civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence, but less than the highest legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

2016It is axiomatic that "[w]e are not required to review claims that are inadequately briefed." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Brianna L., 139 Conn.App. 239 , 250, 55 A.3d 572 (2012). 11 "The clear and convincing standard of proof is substantially greater than the usual civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence, but less than the highest legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.