evaluation claim in Connecticut

1996State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579 , 586 n.7, 569 A.2d 534 (1990); State v. Corchado, supra, 188 Conn. 663 ; State v. Williams, 25 Conn. App. 456, 464 , 595 A.2d 895 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 916 , 597 A.2d 339 (1991).

1996State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579 , 586 n.7, 569 A.2d 534 (1990); State v. Corchado, supra, 188 Conn. 663 ; State v. Williams, 25 Conn. App. 456, 464 , 595 A.2d 895 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 916 , 597 A.2d 339 (1991).

1996State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579 , 586 n.7, 569 A.2d 534 (1990); State v. Corchado, supra, 188 Conn. 663 ; State v. Williams, 25 Conn. App. 456, 464 , 595 A.2d 895 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 916 , 597 A.2d 339 (1991).

1996State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579 , 586 n.7, 569 A.2d 534 (1990); State v. Corchado, supra, 188 Conn. 663 ; State v. Williams, 25 Conn. App. 456, 464 , 595 A.2d 895 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 916 , 597 A.2d 339 (1991).

1996State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579 , 586 n.7, 569 A.2d 534 (1990); State v. Corchado, supra, 188 Conn. 663 ; State v. Williams, 25 Conn. App. 456, 464 , 595 A.2d 895 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 916 , 597 A.2d 339 (1991).

1996State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579 , 586 n.7, 569 A.2d 534 (1990); State v. Corchado, supra, 188 Conn. 663 ; State v. Williams, 25 Conn. App. 456, 464 , 595 A.2d 895 , cert. denied, 220 Conn. 916 , 597 A.2d 339 (1991).

2024We are ever mindful that an evaluation of waiver must be made on a case-by-case basis and that, ‘‘in most instances, a combination of facts and circumstances rather than any single fact will support a finding of waiver.’’ State v. Bellamy, 323 Conn. 400, 411 , 147 A.3d 655 (2016).

2024We are ever mindful that an evaluation of waiver must be made on a case-by-case basis and that, ‘‘in most instances, a combination of facts and circumstances rather than any single fact will support a finding of waiver.’’ State v. Bellamy, 323 Conn. 400, 411 , 147 A.3d 655 (2016).

2017Upon 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.

2017Upon 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.

2017Upon 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.

2017Upon 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.

2017State v. McClain , supra, at 815 , 155 A.3d 209 .

2013We carefully have considered the court’s evaluation of these factors, all of which were appropriate to a determination of whether the defendant’s request, if granted, potentially would disrupt the proceedings already well in progress. 13 In so doing, we are mindful that the court’s analysis entails a balance of several factors and that we must give “considerable weight . . . to the trial judge’s assessment of this balance.” United States v. Denno, 348 F.2d 12 , 15 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied sub nom.

2013DiBlasi v. McMann, 384 U.S. 1007 , 86 S. Ct. 1950 , 16 L.

1999Thereafter, in State v. Webb, supra, 238 Conn. 389 , we adhered to that view.

1994Considering the charge from the standpoint of its effect on the jury in guiding it to a proper verdict; State v. Williams, 182 Conn. 262, 269 , 438 A.2d 80 (1980); it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled.

1994Considering the charge from the standpoint of its effect on the jury in guiding it to a proper verdict; State v. Williams, 182 Conn. 262, 269 , 438 A.2d 80 (1980); it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled.

1994An evaluation of whether the standard of "some evidence" was satisfied need not require a judicial examination of the entire disciplinary hearing, but merely a determination of whether there exists any evidence before the disciplinary body which supports its conclusion, Id.

1988Second National Bank v. Townsend, 130 Conn. 631, 639 , 36 A.2d 744 (1944).

1988Second National Bank v. Townsend, 130 Conn. 631, 639 , 36 A.2d 744 (1944).

1977In making an evaluation of defense counsel’s conduct according to the standard enunciated in Clark , the issue is “not what counsel should have done to constitute . . . proper representation of the defendant considering the case in retrospect, but rather, whether in the circumstances, as viewed at the time, the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.” State v. Ralls, 167 Conn. 408, 432 .