Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2025 7 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. Williamsgreen2 sentences2015Put differ- ently, [an impropriety is an impropriety], regardless of its ultimate effect on the fairness of the trial; whether that [impropriety] caused or contributed to a due pro- cess violation is a separate and distinct question . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Andrews, 313 Conn. 266 , 279, 96 A.3d 1199 (2014); see also State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 572 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004). ‘‘To determine whether any improper conduct by the [prosecutor] violated the defendant’s fair trial rights is predicated on the factors set forth in State v. Williams [ 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 2015Put differ- ently, [an impropriety is an impropriety], regardless of its ultimate effect on the fairness of the trial; whether that [impropriety] caused or contributed to a due pro- cess violation is a separate and distinct question . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Andrews, 313 Conn. 266 , 279, 96 A.3d 1199 (2014); see also State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 572 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004). ‘‘To determine whether any improper conduct by the [prosecutor] violated the defendant’s fair trial rights is predicated on the factors set forth in State v. Williams [ 204 Conn. 523, 540 , | 1 | 2 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2024See State v. Johnson, 288 Conn. 236, 281 , 951 A.2d 1257 (2008) (rejecting defendant’s due process claim brought pursuant to Morales without applying Asherman test because defendant did ‘‘not adequately [allege] a failure to preserve . . . thus, Youngblood and Morales [were] not applicable’’ and ‘‘no need for the Morales remedies ever arose’’). 2024See State v. Johnson, 288 Conn. 236, 281 , 951 A.2d 1257 (2008) (rejecting defendant’s due process claim brought pursuant to Morales without applying Asherman test because defendant did ‘‘not adequately [allege] a failure to preserve . . . thus, Youngblood and Morales [were] not applicable’’ and ‘‘no need for the Morales remedies ever arose’’). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Sade C.green2 sentences2019See In re Sade C., 13 Cal. 4th 952, 990 , 920 P.2d 716 , 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 771 (1996), cert. denied sub nom. 2019See In re Sade C., 13 Cal. 4th 952, 990 , 920 P.2d 716 , 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 771 (1996), cert. denied sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services v. Gregory C.green1 sentence2019See In re Sade C., 13 Cal. 4th 952, 990 , 920 P.2d 716 , 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 771 (1996), cert. denied sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.green1 sentence2019See id., 24 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stevensongreen2 sentences2015Put differ- ently, [an impropriety is an impropriety], regardless of its ultimate effect on the fairness of the trial; whether that [impropriety] caused or contributed to a due pro- cess violation is a separate and distinct question . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Andrews, 313 Conn. 266 , 279, 96 A.3d 1199 (2014); see also State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 572 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004). ‘‘To determine whether any improper conduct by the [prosecutor] violated the defendant’s fair trial rights is predicated on the factors set forth in State v. Williams [ 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 2015Put differ- ently, [an impropriety is an impropriety], regardless of its ultimate effect on the fairness of the trial; whether that [impropriety] caused or contributed to a due pro- cess violation is a separate and distinct question . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Andrews, 313 Conn. 266 , 279, 96 A.3d 1199 (2014); see also State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563, 572 , 849 A.2d 626 (2004). ‘‘To determine whether any improper conduct by the [prosecutor] violated the defendant’s fair trial rights is predicated on the factors set forth in State v. Williams [ 204 Conn. 523, 540 , | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences2025In Fare- tta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807 , 95 S. Ct. 2525 , 45 L. 2025In Fare- tta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807 , 95 S. Ct. 2525 , 45 L. | 3 | 2021–2025 |
Fasulo v. Arafeh
green
1 sentence2025As set forth previously in this opinion, in her com- plaint, the plaintiff alleged that she was bringing the present action to, inter alia, ‘‘enforce the substantive constitutional rights established in [Fasulo v. Arafeh, supra, 173 Conn. 473 ]14 to liberty as soon as the person 14 As explained previously in this opinion, Fasulo held that ‘‘the due pro- cess clause of the Connecticut constitution mandates that involuntarily confined civilly committed individuals be granted periodic judicial reviews of the propriety of their continued confinement.’’ Fasulo v. Arafeh, supra, 173 Conn. 479 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Beckerman
neutral
1 sentence2024We also conclude that we need not apply the Asherman balancing test in such circumstances, as the alleged failure to preserve, which was predicated on a failure to collect or to create evidence, did not implicate the defendant’s right to due process.14 The record in this case shows that Koval never seized the contents of the hamper, meaning those contents were never in his possession, and the defendant acknowledges as much in his appellate brief on the issue when he refers to the contents of the hamper as ‘‘uncollected evidence.’’ (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the defendant cannot demonstrate t | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Warholic
green
2 sentences2022As we have indicated, our determination of whether any improper conduct by the [prosecutor] violated the defendant’s fair trial rights is predicated on the factors set forth in State v. Williams, [ 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987)], with due consideration of whether that [improper conduct] was objected to at trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 , 361–62, 897 A.2d 569 (2006). ‘‘These factors include the extent to which the [improper conduct] was invited by defense conduct or argument, the severity of the [improper conduct], the frequency of the [ 2022As we have indicated, our determination of whether any improper conduct by the [prosecutor] violated the defendant’s fair trial rights is predicated on the factors set forth in State v. Williams, [ 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987)], with due consideration of whether that [improper conduct] was objected to at trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 , 361–62, 897 A.2d 569 (2006). ‘‘These factors include the extent to which the [improper conduct] was invited by defense conduct or argument, the severity of the [improper conduct], the frequency of the [ | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Anthony A. v. Commissioner of Correction
green
1 sentence2021Id., 686 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Pointer v. Texas
green
2 sentences2016Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403 , 85 S. Ct. 1065 , 13 L. 2016Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403 , 85 S. Ct. 1065 , 13 L. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Felix R.
green
2 sentences2015These factors include the extent to which the [impropriety] was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the [impropriety] . . . the frequency of the [impropriety] . . . the centrality of the [impropriety] to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Felix R., 147 Conn. App. 206, 219 , 83 A.3d 619 (2013), cert. granted on other grounds, 311 Conn. 915 , 84 A.3d 883 (2014).8 A The defendant first argues that the prosecutor com- 2015These factors include the extent to which the [impropriety] was invited by defense conduct or argument . . . the severity of the [impropriety] . . . the frequency of the [impropriety] . . . the centrality of the [impropriety] to the critical issues in the case . . . the strength of the curative measures adopted . . . and the strength of the state’s case.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Felix R., 147 Conn. App. 206, 219 , 83 A.3d 619 (2013), cert. granted on other grounds, 311 Conn. 915 , 84 A.3d 883 (2014).8 A The defendant first argues that the prosecutor com- | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.