85 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 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. Kitchensgreen2 sentences2026See Connecticut Criminal Jury Instructions 7 Because we conclude that the defendant’s claim fails on the merits, we do not address the state’s contention that defense counsel implicitly waived this claim of instructional error under State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011). 2026See Connecticut Criminal Jury Instructions 7 Because we conclude that the defendant’s claim fails on the merits, we do not address the state’s contention that defense counsel implicitly waived this claim of instructional error under State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011). | 8 | 20 |
State v. Morantgreen2 sentences2009See State v. Morant, 242 Conn. 666, 686-87 , 701 A.2d 1 (1997). 2009See State v. Morant, 242 Conn. 666, 686-87 , 701 A.2d 1 (1997). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Mungroogreen2 sentences2020See State v. Mungroo, 299 Conn. 667 , 672–73, 11 A.3d 132 (2011). ‘‘Connecticut courts have deemed a claim of instructional error implicitly waived when the defense failed to take exception to, and acqui- esced in, the jury instructions following one or more opportunities to review them. . . . [W]hen the trial court provides counsel with a copy of the proposed jury instructions, allows a meaningful opportunity for their review, solicits comments from counsel regarding changes or modifications and counsel affirmatively accepts the instructions proposed or given, the defen- dant may be deemed to 2020See State v. Mungroo, 299 Conn. 667 , 672–73, 11 A.3d 132 (2011). ‘‘Connecticut courts have deemed a claim of instructional error implicitly waived when the defense failed to take exception to, and acqui- esced in, the jury instructions following one or more opportunities to review them. . . . [W]hen the trial court provides counsel with a copy of the proposed jury instructions, allows a meaningful opportunity for their review, solicits comments from counsel regarding changes or modifications and counsel affirmatively accepts the instructions proposed or given, the defen- dant may be deemed to | 2 | 5 |
State v. THOMAS W.green2 sentences2015We never have required, how- ever, a defendant who has submitted a request to charge also to take an exception to a contrary charge, and such a requirement would contravene the plain language of [Practice Book § 42-16]. ‘‘Nonetheless, even if a claim of instructional error is initially preserved by compliance with Practice Book § [42-16], the defendant may thereafter engage in con- duct that manifests an intention to abandon that claim.3 See State v. Thomas W., [ 301 Conn. 724, 732 , 22 A.3d 1242 (2011)] (waiver found when, after defendant objected to proposed instruction, he expressed satisfa 2015We never have required, how- ever, a defendant who has submitted a request to charge also to take an exception to a contrary charge, and such a requirement would contravene the plain language of [Practice Book § 42-16]. ‘‘Nonetheless, even if a claim of instructional error is initially preserved by compliance with Practice Book § [42-16], the defendant may thereafter engage in con- duct that manifests an intention to abandon that claim.3 See State v. Thomas W., [ 301 Conn. 724, 732 , 22 A.3d 1242 (2011)] (waiver found when, after defendant objected to proposed instruction, he expressed satisfa | 2 | 3 |
State v. Bellamygreen2 sentences2017See State v. McClain , 319 Conn. 902 , 122 A.3d 637 (2015) (granting certification to review issue of whether 'the Appellate Court properly determine[d] that an implied waiver of a claim of instructional error that satisfies [ Kitchens ] also forecloses plain error review' [citation omitted] )." State v. Bellamy , supra, 323 Conn. at 433 n.22, 147 A.3d 655 . 2017See State v. McClain , 319 Conn. 902 , 122 A.3d 637 (2015) (granting certification to review issue of whether 'the Appellate Court properly determine[d] that an implied waiver of a claim of instructional error that satisfies [ Kitchens ] also forecloses plain error review' [citation omitted] )." State v. Bellamy , supra, 323 Conn. at 433 n.22, 147 A.3d 655 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fabricatoregreen2 sentences2011In fact, in the present case, the majority expressly has acknowledged that the defendant's claim is reviewable under the second Golding prong, stating that "the claim of instructional error on an element of the crime is of constitutional magnitude because it implicates the due process rights of the defendant." [4] This court also has defined waiver as the "voluntary relinquishment or abandonment express or impliedof a legal right or notice." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435, 449 , 978 A.2d 1089 (2009); accord State v. Fabricatore, supra, 281 Conn. at 482 n. 2011In fact, in the present case, the majority expressly has acknowledged that the defendant's claim is reviewable under the second Golding prong, stating that "the claim of instructional error on an element of the crime is of constitutional magnitude because it implicates the due process rights of the defendant." [4] This court also has defined waiver as the "voluntary relinquishment or abandonment express or impliedof a legal right or notice." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435, 449 , 978 A.2d 1089 (2009); accord State v. Fabricatore, supra, 281 Conn. at 482 n. | 2 | 2 |
State v. DeJesusgreen2 sentences2010See State v. DeJesus, 260 Conn. 466, 472-73 , 797 A.2d 1101 (2002) (“[a]n improper instruction on an element *858 of an offense ... is of constitutional dimension” [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2010See State v. DeJesus, 260 Conn. 466, 472-73 , 797 A.2d 1101 (2002) (“[a]n improper instruction on an element *858 of an offense ... is of constitutional dimension” [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ebrongreen2 sentences2010Recently, 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 *410 a claim of instructional error unless it is shown that he “actively induced the trial court to give the . . . instruction that he . . . challenges on appeal . . . .” Following Ebron , a party will have waived an objection to instructional language if he or she has “actively inducejd] the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction.” Id., 680 . 2010Recently, 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 *410 a claim of instructional error unless it is shown that he “actively induced the trial court to give the . . . instruction that he . . . challenges on appeal . . . .” Following Ebron , a party will have waived an objection to instructional language if he or she has “actively inducejd] the trial court to act on the challenged portion of the instruction.” Id., 680 . | 1 | 5 |
State v. McClaingreen2 sentences2019We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to his claim of plain error, and we remanded the case to the Appellate Court with direction to reconsider the defendant’s plain error claim in light of State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802, 815 , 155 A.3d 209 (2017), in which we held that an implied waiver of a claim of instructional error does not preclude appellate relief under the plain error doctrine. 2019We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to his claim of plain error, and we remanded the case to the Appellate Court with direction to reconsider the defendant’s plain error claim in light of State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802, 815 , 155 A.3d 209 (2017), in which we held that an implied waiver of a claim of instructional error does not preclude appellate relief under the plain error doctrine. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Waltongreen2 sentences1996“A defendant may prevail under the third prong of Golding on a claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145, 183 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995); see State v. Walton, 227 Conn. 32, 65 , 630 A.2d 990 (1993). 1996“A defendant may prevail under the third prong of Golding on a claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145, 183 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995); see State v. Walton, 227 Conn. 32, 65 , 630 A.2d 990 (1993). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2017Upon granting the defendant's petition for certification to appeal from our previous decision, the Supreme Court has now directed this court to consider the defendant's claim of plain error in light of State v. McClain , 324 Conn. 782 , 155 A.3d 209 (2017), which held that an implied waiver of a claim of instructional error pursuant to State v. Kitchens , 299 Conn. 447 , 482-83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011), does not preclude an evaluation of that claim under the plain error doctrine. 2017See State v. Schuler , 157 Conn.App. 757 , 774, 776, 118 A.3d 91 ("[o]ur review of the record leads us to the conclusion that the claimed error in the jury instruction, [which the defendant conceded was induced] although potentially ambiguous in its meaning, fails to rise to the level of plain error"), cert. denied, 318 Conn. 903 , 122 A.3d 633 (2015) ; cf. State v. McClain , 324 Conn. 782 , 808, 155 A.3d 209 (2017) ("[w]e ... conclude that a Kitchens waiver [whereby a criminal defendant implicitly waives a claim of instructional error] does not preclude appellate relief under the plain error | 1 | 2 |
State v. Madigoskygreen2 sentences2009A defendant is not entitled to review of a claim to which he waived any objection at trial. 5 Recently, in State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 679-82 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009), our Supreme Court clarified the principles governing the reviewability of claims of instructional error in cases in which a party has acquiesced to the charge given at trial. 6 In Ebron , our Supreme Court, relying in part on its earlier decision *305 in State v. Madigosky, 291 Conn. 28 , 35 n.7, 966 A. 2d 730 (2009), stated that an appellant will not be deemed to have waived a claim of instructional error unless it is shown that 2009A defendant is not entitled to review of a claim to which he waived any objection at trial. 5 Recently, in State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 679-82 , 975 A.2d 17 (2009), our Supreme Court clarified the principles governing the reviewability of claims of instructional error in cases in which a party has acquiesced to the charge given at trial. 6 In Ebron , our Supreme Court, relying in part on its earlier decision *305 in State v. Madigosky, 291 Conn. 28 , 35 n.7, 966 A. 2d 730 (2009), stated that an appellant will not be deemed to have waived a claim of instructional error unless it is shown that | 1 | 2 |
State v. Apontegreen2 sentences2005See State v. Aponte, 259 Conn. 512, 516-17 , 790 A.2d 457 (2002) (applying Golding review to claim that defendant’s due process rights were violated when court improperly instructed jury on specific intent element of conspiracy to commit murder). 2005See State v. Aponte, 259 Conn. 512, 516-17 , 790 A.2d 457 (2002) (applying Golding review to claim that defendant’s due process rights were violated when court improperly instructed jury on specific intent element of conspiracy to commit murder). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Spillanegreen2 sentences2022See State v. Spillane, 255 Conn. 746 , 757–58, 770 A.2d 898 (2001).’’ After reviewing the supplemental briefs, we conclude that it would not be appropriate to construe the defendant’s sufficiency claim as an unpreserved claim of instructional error. 2022See State v. Spillane, 255 Conn. 746 , 757–58, 770 A.2d 898 (2001).’’ After reviewing the supplemental briefs, we conclude that it would not be appropriate to construe the defendant’s sufficiency claim as an unpreserved claim of instructional error. | 1 | 1 |
| Tracy v. New Milford Public Schoolsgreen | 1 | 1 |
Terry v. Terrygreen1 sentence2022See State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298 , 327 and n.30, 922 A.2d 191 [cert. denied, 284 Conn. 910 , 931 A.2d 934 ] (2007).’’ And (2) ‘‘[i]f the defendant’s claim is more properly characterized as a claim of instructional error, was the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the definitions set forth in § 53a-118 (a) (2) and (4) (A) error and, if so, was the error harmful? | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Russellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Barrettagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Blakeman v. Planning and Zoning Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Teng Bunleutgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Petiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Colemangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Golding
green
2 sentences2012The defendant acknowledges that he did not preserve this claim of instructional error and seeks review of the claim under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 2012The defendant acknowledges that he did not preserve this claim of instructional error and seeks review of the claim under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). | 11 | 2000–2018 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2015We never have required, how- ever, a defendant who has submitted a request to charge also to take an exception to a contrary charge, and such a requirement would contravene the plain language of [Practice Book § 42-16]. ‘‘Nonetheless, even if a claim of instructional error is initially preserved by compliance with Practice Book § [42-16], the defendant may thereafter engage in con- duct that manifests an intention to abandon that claim.3 See State v. Thomas W., [ 301 Conn. 724, 732 , 22 A.3d 1242 (2011)] (waiver found when, after defendant objected to proposed instruction, he expressed satisfa 2015We never have required, how- ever, a defendant who has submitted a request to charge also to take an exception to a contrary charge, and such a requirement would contravene the plain language of [Practice Book § 42-16]. ‘‘Nonetheless, even if a claim of instructional error is initially preserved by compliance with Practice Book § [42-16], the defendant may thereafter engage in con- duct that manifests an intention to abandon that claim.3 See State v. Thomas W., [ 301 Conn. 724, 732 , 22 A.3d 1242 (2011)] (waiver found when, after defendant objected to proposed instruction, he expressed satisfa | 3 | 2012–2022 |
State v. Whitford
green
2 sentences2015We never have required, how- ever, a defendant who has submitted a request to charge also to take an exception to a contrary charge, and such a requirement would contravene the plain language of [Practice Book § 42-16]. ‘‘Nonetheless, even if a claim of instructional error is initially preserved by compliance with Practice Book § [42-16], the defendant may thereafter engage in con- duct that manifests an intention to abandon that claim.3 See State v. Thomas W., [ 301 Conn. 724, 732 , 22 A.3d 1242 (2011)] (waiver found when, after defendant objected to proposed instruction, he expressed satisfa 2015We never have required, how- ever, a defendant who has submitted a request to charge also to take an exception to a contrary charge, and such a requirement would contravene the plain language of [Practice Book § 42-16]. ‘‘Nonetheless, even if a claim of instructional error is initially preserved by compliance with Practice Book § [42-16], the defendant may thereafter engage in con- duct that manifests an intention to abandon that claim.3 See State v. Thomas W., [ 301 Conn. 724, 732 , 22 A.3d 1242 (2011)] (waiver found when, after defendant objected to proposed instruction, he expressed satisfa | 3 | 2012–2022 |
State v. Howard
green
2 sentences2007We will review the defendant’s claim pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), because there is an adequate record, and “a claim of instructional error regarding the burden of proof is of constitutional magnitude.” State v. Howard, 88 Conn. App. 404, 429 , 870 A.2d 8 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 917 , 883 A.2d 1250 (2005). 2007We will review the defendant’s claim pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), because there is an adequate record, and “a claim of instructional error regarding the burden of proof is of constitutional magnitude.” State v. Howard, 88 Conn. App. 404, 429 , 870 A.2d 8 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 917 , 883 A.2d 1250 (2005). | 3 | 2006–2007 |
State v. Howard
green
2 sentences2007We will review the defendant’s claim pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), because there is an adequate record, and “a claim of instructional error regarding the burden of proof is of constitutional magnitude.” State v. Howard, 88 Conn. App. 404, 429 , 870 A.2d 8 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 917 , 883 A.2d 1250 (2005). 2007We will review the defendant’s claim pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), because there is an adequate record, and “a claim of instructional error regarding the burden of proof is of constitutional magnitude.” State v. Howard, 88 Conn. App. 404, 429 , 870 A.2d 8 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 917 , 883 A.2d 1250 (2005). | 3 | 2006–2007 |
State v. Webb
green
2 sentences1999Because, under the third prong of Golding , “[a] defendant may prevail . . . on a claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled”; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389, 456 , 680 A.2d 147 (1996); we reject the defendant’s constitutional claim. 1999Because, under the third prong of Golding , “[a] defendant may prevail . . . on a claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled”; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389, 456 , 680 A.2d 147 (1996); we reject the defendant’s constitutional claim. | 3 | 1998–1999 |
State v. Lytell
green
2 sentences1992State v. Lytell, 206 Conn. 657, 664 , 539 A.2d 133 (1988); State v. Moss, 189 Conn. 364, 370 , 456 A.2d 274 (1983); State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 170 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L. 1992State v. Lytell, 206 Conn. 657, 664 , 539 A.2d 133 (1988); State v. Moss, 189 Conn. 364, 370 , 456 A.2d 274 (1983); State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 170 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L. | 3 | 1989–1992 |
State v. Derrico
green
2 sentences1992State v. Lytell, 206 Conn. 657, 664 , 539 A.2d 133 (1988); State v. Moss, 189 Conn. 364, 370 , 456 A.2d 274 (1983); State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 170 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L. 1992State v. Lytell, 206 Conn. 657, 664 , 539 A.2d 133 (1988); State v. Moss, 189 Conn. 364, 370 , 456 A.2d 274 (1983); State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 170 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L. | 3 | 1989–1992 |
State v. Moss
green
2 sentences1992State v. Lytell, 206 Conn. 657, 664 , 539 A.2d 133 (1988); State v. Moss, 189 Conn. 364, 370 , 456 A.2d 274 (1983); State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 170 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L. 1992State v. Lytell, 206 Conn. 657, 664 , 539 A.2d 133 (1988); State v. Moss, 189 Conn. 364, 370 , 456 A.2d 274 (1983); State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 170 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L. | 3 | 1989–1992 |
Payne v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1992State v. Lytell, 206 Conn. 657, 664 , 539 A.2d 133 (1988); State v. Moss, 189 Conn. 364, 370 , 456 A.2d 274 (1983); State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 170 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L. 1992State v. Lytell, 206 Conn. 657, 664 , 539 A.2d 133 (1988); State v. Moss, 189 Conn. 364, 370 , 456 A.2d 274 (1983); State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 170 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L. | 3 | 1989–1992 |
McClain v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences1992State v. Lytell, 206 Conn. 657, 664 , 539 A.2d 133 (1988); State v. Moss, 189 Conn. 364, 370 , 456 A.2d 274 (1983); State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 170 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L. 1992State v. Lytell, 206 Conn. 657, 664 , 539 A.2d 133 (1988); State v. Moss, 189 Conn. 364, 370 , 456 A.2d 274 (1983); State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 170 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L. | 3 | 1989–1992 |
Nash v. Reedel
green
2 sentences1992State v. Lytell, 206 Conn. 657, 664 , 539 A.2d 133 (1988); State v. Moss, 189 Conn. 364, 370 , 456 A.2d 274 (1983); State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 170 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L. 1992State v. Lytell, 206 Conn. 657, 664 , 539 A.2d 133 (1988); State v. Moss, 189 Conn. 364, 370 , 456 A.2d 274 (1983); State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151, 170 , 434 A.2d 356 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064 , 101 S. Ct. 789 , 66 L. | 3 | 1989–1992 |
Ginsberg v. Fusaro
green
2 sentences2017Nevertheless, although we conclude that a defendant's first time, postverdict challenge to legally inconsistent verdicts is permissible because it does not result in unfair surprise to the prosecutor and the trial court and because the verdicts are the result of jury error, we also conclude that, to avoid the risk of a jury mistake, the better practice is for the trial court to instruct the jury on the issue in the initial charge. 12 We further conclude that, regardless of whether such an instruction has been given, if the jury renders legally inconsistent guilty verdicts, either the defendant 2017Nevertheless, although we conclude that a defendant's first time, postverdict challenge to legally inconsistent verdicts is permissible because it does not result in unfair surprise to the prosecutor and the trial court and because the verdicts are the result of jury error, we also conclude that, to avoid the risk of a jury mistake, the better practice is for the trial court to instruct the jury on the issue in the initial charge. 12 We further conclude that, regardless of whether such an instruction has been given, if the jury renders legally inconsistent guilty verdicts, either the defendant | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Matheney
green
1 sentence2026February 17, 2026 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 51 354 Conn. 212 FEBRUARY, 2026 229 State v. Matheney 2.8-2, supra. In relevant part, the court provided the following instruction to the jury: “To prove that the defendant was the initial aggressor in his encounter with [the victim], the state need not prove that the defen- dant was the first person to use physical force in that encounter. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Salamon
green
2 sentences2025For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the defendant’s claim, whether analyzed under double jeopardy principles or as a claim of instructional error, fails under the third prong of Golding because the defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing the existence of a constitu- tional violation.8 Before addressing the two distinct aspects of the defendant’s claim, our discussion will be aided by a brief review of our Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Salamon, supra, 287 Conn. 509. 2025For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the defendant’s claim, whether analyzed under double jeopardy principles or as a claim of instructional error, fails under the third prong of Golding because the defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing the existence of a constitu- tional violation.8 Before addressing the two distinct aspects of the defendant’s claim, our discussion will be aided by a brief review of our Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Salamon, supra, 287 Conn. 509 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Ramon A. G. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Ramon A. G. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Browne green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Browne green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Farmer-Lanctot v. Shand green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Rosado green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Montanez green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Lokting green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. King green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. TOSHIO KO LOKTING green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Ash green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Hinton green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Bowman green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Harris green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Clark green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Mitchell green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Morascini green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Toro green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Jones green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Toccaline v. Commissioner of Correction green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Spiegelmann green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Dudley green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Old Kent Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Ford green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Green green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.