prosecutorial misconduct claim in Connecticut

11 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2017 0 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Paynegreen conn · 2012 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017See State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 560 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012). 3 We acknowledge that in State v. Ruffin, 316 Conn. 20 , 27–29, 110 A.3d 1225 (2015), a case decided after Payne, we used the general due process standard when considering a prosecutorial misconduct claim that implicated the fifth amendment right to remain silent. 2017See State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 560 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012). 3 We acknowledge that in State v. Ruffin, 316 Conn. 20 , 27–29, 110 A.3d 1225 (2015), a case decided after Payne, we used the general due process standard when considering a prosecutorial misconduct claim that implicated the fifth amendment right to remain silent.	1	1
State v. Dudleygreen conn · 2002 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See State v. Dudley, 68 Conn. App. 405, 409-10 , 791 A.2d 661 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 916 , 797 A.2d 515 (2002). 2002See State v. Dudley, 68 Conn. App. 405, 409-10 , 791 A.2d 661 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 916 , 797 A.2d 515 (2002).	1	1
State v. Dudleygreen connappct · 2002 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See State v. Dudley, 68 Conn. App. 405, 409-10 , 791 A.2d 661 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 916 , 797 A.2d 515 (2002). 2002See State v. Dudley, 68 Conn. App. 405, 409-10 , 791 A.2d 661 , cert. denied, 260 Conn. 916 , 797 A.2d 515 (2002).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Williams green conn · 1987 2 sentences 2006At the outset, we note that the defendant concedes that the instances of alleged misconduct were not preserved for our review. “[T]he touchstone for appellate review of claims of prosecutorial misconduct is a determination of whether the defendant was deprived of his right to a fair trial. . . . [That] determination must involve application of the specific prosecutorial misconduct factors articulated in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987), regardless of whether the defendant objected to the incidents of misconduct at trial. . . . 2006At the outset, we note that the defendant concedes that the instances of alleged misconduct were not preserved for our review. “[T]he touchstone for appellate review of claims of prosecutorial misconduct is a determination of whether the defendant was deprived of his right to a fair trial. . . . [That] determination must involve application of the specific prosecutorial misconduct factors articulated in State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523, 540 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987), regardless of whether the defendant objected to the incidents of misconduct at trial. . . .	3	2004–2006
State v. Golding green conn · 1989 2 sentences 2004Conceding that the prosecutorial misconduct claim is unpreserved, the defendant seeks review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 2004Conceding that the prosecutorial misconduct claim is unpreserved, the defendant seeks review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989).	3	1999–2004
State v. Holliday green connappct · 2004 2 sentences 2005State v. Stevenson, supra, 573 .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Holliday, 85 Conn. App. 242, 258 , 856 A.2d 1041 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 945 , 861 A.2d 1178 (2004). 2005State v. Stevenson, supra, 573 .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Holliday, 85 Conn. App. 242, 258 , 856 A.2d 1041 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 945 , 861 A.2d 1178 (2004).	1	2005–2005
State v. Holliday green conn · 2004 2 sentences 2005State v. Stevenson, supra, 573 .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Holliday, 85 Conn. App. 242, 258 , 856 A.2d 1041 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 945 , 861 A.2d 1178 (2004). 2005State v. Stevenson, supra, 573 .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Holliday, 85 Conn. App. 242, 258 , 856 A.2d 1041 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 945 , 861 A.2d 1178 (2004).	1	2005–2005
State v. McKiernan green conn · 2003 1 sentence 2004Generally, [i]n evaluating a prosecutorial misconduct claim, we review whether the record discloses a pattern of misconduct pervasive throughout the trial or conduct that was so blatantly egregious that it infringed on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McKiernan, 78 Conn. App. 182, 195-96 , 826 A.2d 1210 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 902 , 832 A.2d 66 (2003).	1	2004–2004
State v. Lopes green conn · 2003 1 sentence 2004Generally, [i]n evaluating a prosecutorial misconduct claim, we review whether the record discloses a pattern of misconduct pervasive throughout the trial or conduct that was so blatantly egregious that it infringed on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McKiernan, 78 Conn. App. 182, 195-96 , 826 A.2d 1210 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 902 , 832 A.2d 66 (2003).	1	2004–2004
State v. McKiernan green connappct · 2003 2 sentences 2004Generally, [i]n evaluating a prosecutorial misconduct claim, we review whether the record discloses a pattern of misconduct pervasive throughout the trial or conduct that was so blatantly egregious that it infringed on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McKiernan, 78 Conn. App. 182, 195-96 , 826 A.2d 1210 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 902 , 832 A.2d 66 (2003). 2004Generally, [i]n evaluating a prosecutorial misconduct claim, we review whether the record discloses a pattern of misconduct pervasive throughout the trial or conduct that was so blatantly egregious that it infringed on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McKiernan, 78 Conn. App. 182, 195-96 , 826 A.2d 1210 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 902 , 832 A.2d 66 (2003).	1	2004–2004
State v. Wickes green connappct · 2002 2 sentences 2003Generally, “[i]n evaluating a prosecutorial misconduct claim, we review whether the record discloses a pattern of misconduct pervasive throughout the trial or conduct that was so blatantly egregious that it infringed on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” State v. Wickes, 72 Conn. App. 380, 385 , 805 A.2d 142 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 914 , 811 A.2d 1294 (2002). 2003Generally, “[i]n evaluating a prosecutorial misconduct claim, we review whether the record discloses a pattern of misconduct pervasive throughout the trial or conduct that was so blatantly egregious that it infringed on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” State v. Wickes, 72 Conn. App. 380, 385 , 805 A.2d 142 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 914 , 811 A.2d 1294 (2002).	1	2003–2003
Jones v. Kramer green conn · 2002 1 sentence 2003Generally, “[i]n evaluating a prosecutorial misconduct claim, we review whether the record discloses a pattern of misconduct pervasive throughout the trial or conduct that was so blatantly egregious that it infringed on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” State v. Wickes, 72 Conn. App. 380, 385 , 805 A.2d 142 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 914 , 811 A.2d 1294 (2002).	1	2003–2003
State v. Wickes green conn · 2002 1 sentence 2003Generally, “[i]n evaluating a prosecutorial misconduct claim, we review whether the record discloses a pattern of misconduct pervasive throughout the trial or conduct that was so blatantly egregious that it infringed on the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” State v. Wickes, 72 Conn. App. 380, 385 , 805 A.2d 142 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 914 , 811 A.2d 1294 (2002).	1	2003–2003
State v. Duteau green conn · 2002 1 sentence 2002Furthermore, in considering the defendant’s prosecutorial misconduct claim, “we ask whether the prosecutor’s conduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the. resulting conviction a denial of due process.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.	1	2002–2002
Brady v. Maryland green scotus · 1963 2 sentences 1995I Prosecutorial Misconduct The defendant first claims that the misconduct of the state’s attorney throughout the probable cause hearing and trial deprived him of a fair trial in violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution. 3 He alleges that the prosecutor’s misconduct falls into seven categories of proscribed behavior, each of which was sufficient to deny him a fair trial: (1) suppression of evidence favorable to him in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 1995I Prosecutorial Misconduct The defendant first claims that the misconduct of the state’s attorney throughout the probable cause hearing and trial deprived him of a fair trial in violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution. 3 He alleges that the prosecutor’s misconduct falls into seven categories of proscribed behavior, each of which was sufficient to deny him a fair trial: (1) suppression of evidence favorable to him in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10	1	1995–1995

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-21 (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-49 (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-70 (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86e (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

WA 175 (1985–2026) CA 79 (1973–2026) KS 69 (2001–2025) IN 25 (1996–2025) OH 18 (1992–2026) UT 18 (1992–2024) IA 17 (1986–2026) PA 15 (2012–2025) NM 12 (2009–2024) CT 11 (1995–2017) TX 10 (2012–2025) CO 10 (2017–2026) WY 8 (1998–2025) NV 7 (1986–2021) ID 6 (2010–2025) MI 6 (2008–2025) MN 6 (2001–2019) AZ 6 (1998–2025) DE 6 (2014–2026) TN 6 (1999–2020) IL 5 (2020–2022) HI 4 (2003–2025) OK 4 (2006–2023) FL 3 (2006–2017) SD 3 (2014–2026) NE 2 (2016–2018) VI 2 (2011–2014) AR 2 (2000–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check