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 2008–2026 4 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. Davisgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Davis, 229 Conn. 285, 302 , 641 A.2d 370 (1994) (‘‘a trial court may not find a violation of probation unless it finds that the predicate facts underlying the violation have been established by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing—that is, the evidence must induce a reasonable belief that it is more probable than not that the defendant has violated a condition of his or her probation’’). 2024See State v. Davis, 229 Conn. 285, 302 , 641 A.2d 370 (1994) (‘‘a trial court may not find a violation of probation unless it finds that the predicate facts underlying the violation have been established by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing—that is, the evidence must induce a reasonable belief that it is more probable than not that the defendant has violated a condition of his or her probation’’). | 1 | 7 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. McElveen
green
2 sentences2010“In making its factual determination, the trial court is entitled to draw reasonable and logical inferences from the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McElveen, 69 Conn. App. 202, 205 , 797 A.2d 534 (2002). 2010“In making its factual determination, the trial court is entitled to draw reasonable and logical inferences from the evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McElveen, 69 Conn. App. 202, 205 , 797 A.2d 534 (2002). | 4 | 2008–2010 |
State v. Owens
green
1 sentence2026This court has observed that to support a judgment of revocation of probation, [o]ur law does not require the state to prove that all conditions alleged were violated; it is sufficient to prove that one was violated.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Owens, 235 Conn. App. 482 , 494–95, 345 A.3d 489 (2025). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Esquilin
green
2 sentences2025These restrictions are meant to assure that the probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation and that the community is not harmed by the probationer’s being at large.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Esquilin, 179 Conn. App. 461, 469 , 179 A.3d 238 (2018). 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 9 State v. Jordan well settled that a trial court may not find a violation of probation unless it finds that the predicate facts underlying the violation have been established by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing—that is, the evidence must induce a rea 2025These restrictions are meant to assure that the probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation and that the community is not harmed by the probationer’s being at large.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Esquilin, 179 Conn. App. 461, 469 , 179 A.3d 238 (2018). 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 9 State v. Jordan well settled that a trial court may not find a violation of probation unless it finds that the predicate facts underlying the violation have been established by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing—that is, the evidence must induce a rea | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Santos
green
2 sentences2025In making its factual determination, the trial court is entitled to draw reasonable and logical inferences from the evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Santos, 108 Conn. App. 250 , 253–54, 947 A.2d 414 (2008). ‘‘This court has observed that to support a judgment of revocation of probation, [o]ur law does not require the state to prove that all conditions alleged were violated; it is sufficient to prove that one was violated.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wells, 112 Conn. App. 147, 156 , 962 A.2d 810 (2009). 2025In making its factual determination, the trial court is entitled to draw reasonable and logical inferences from the evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Santos, 108 Conn. App. 250 , 253–54, 947 A.2d 414 (2008). ‘‘This court has observed that to support a judgment of revocation of probation, [o]ur law does not require the state to prove that all conditions alleged were violated; it is sufficient to prove that one was violated.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wells, 112 Conn. App. 147, 156 , 962 A.2d 810 (2009). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Wells
green
2 sentences2025In making its factual determination, the trial court is entitled to draw reasonable and logical inferences from the evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Santos, 108 Conn. App. 250 , 253–54, 947 A.2d 414 (2008). ‘‘This court has observed that to support a judgment of revocation of probation, [o]ur law does not require the state to prove that all conditions alleged were violated; it is sufficient to prove that one was violated.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wells, 112 Conn. App. 147, 156 , 962 A.2d 810 (2009). 2025In making its factual determination, the trial court is entitled to draw reasonable and logical inferences from the evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Santos, 108 Conn. App. 250 , 253–54, 947 A.2d 414 (2008). ‘‘This court has observed that to support a judgment of revocation of probation, [o]ur law does not require the state to prove that all conditions alleged were violated; it is sufficient to prove that one was violated.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wells, 112 Conn. App. 147, 156 , 962 A.2d 810 (2009). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Roberson
green
2 sentences2011Thus, the burden on the state to establish a probation violation “is substantially lower than that for conviction”; State v. Roberson, 165 Conn. 73, 80 , 327 A.2d 556 (1973); which, of course, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 2011Thus, the burden on the state to establish a probation violation “is substantially lower than that for conviction”; State v. Roberson, 165 Conn. 73, 80 , 327 A.2d 556 (1973); which, of course, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Bouteiller
green
2 sentences2009Since there are two distinct components of the revocation hearing, our standard of review differs depending on which part of the hearing we are reviewing.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bouteiller, 112 Conn. App. 40, 51 , 961 A.2d 995 (2009). “[A] trial court may not find a violation of probation unless it finds that the predicate facts underlying the violation have been established by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing—that is, the evidence must induce a reasonable belief that it is more probable than not that the defendant has violated a condition 2009Since there are two distinct components of the revocation hearing, our standard of review differs depending on which part of the hearing we are reviewing.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bouteiller, 112 Conn. App. 40, 51 , 961 A.2d 995 (2009). “[A] trial court may not find a violation of probation unless it finds that the predicate facts underlying the violation have been established by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing—that is, the evidence must induce a reasonable belief that it is more probable than not that the defendant has violated a condition | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Hooks
green
1 sentence2008A court’s finding of fact is clearly erroneous and its conclusions drawn from that finding lack sufficient evidence when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hooks, 80 Conn. App. 75, 80-81 , 832 A.2d 690 , cert. denied, 267 Conn. 908 , 840 A.2d 1171 (2003). “[A] trial court may not find a violation of probation unless it finds that the predic | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2008A court’s finding of fact is clearly erroneous and its conclusions drawn from that finding lack sufficient evidence when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hooks, 80 Conn. App. 75, 80-81 , 832 A.2d 690 , cert. denied, 267 Conn. 908 , 840 A.2d 1171 (2003). “[A] trial court may not find a violation of probation unless it finds that the predic | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Hooks
green
2 sentences2008A court’s finding of fact is clearly erroneous and its conclusions drawn from that finding lack sufficient evidence when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hooks, 80 Conn. App. 75, 80-81 , 832 A.2d 690 , cert. denied, 267 Conn. 908 , 840 A.2d 1171 (2003). “[A] trial court may not find a violation of probation unless it finds that the predic 2008A court’s finding of fact is clearly erroneous and its conclusions drawn from that finding lack sufficient evidence when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hooks, 80 Conn. App. 75, 80-81 , 832 A.2d 690 , cert. denied, 267 Conn. 908 , 840 A.2d 1171 (2003). “[A] trial court may not find a violation of probation unless it finds that the predic | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.