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.
10 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 1 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. Jimenezgreen2 sentences1998These are factual questions for you to decide.” In State v. Jimenez, 228 Conn. 335, 341 , 636 A.2d 782 (1994), our Supreme Court determined that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the initial aggressor exception to the law of self-defense when it defined the initial aggressor as the first actor to use physical force. 1998These are factual questions for you to decide.” In State v. Jimenez, 228 Conn. 335, 341 , 636 A.2d 782 (1994), our Supreme Court determined that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the initial aggressor exception to the law of self-defense when it defined the initial aggressor as the first actor to use physical force. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., State v. Brown, 345 Conn. 354 , 378–79 and n.10, 285 A.3d 367 (2022) (declining to recharacterize insufficiency of evidence claim as instructional impropriety claim because evidence was sufficient to sup- port verdict on basis of charge given to jury). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Diggsgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Diggs , 219 Conn. 295 , 299, 592 A.2d 949 (1991) ("[A]n *717 instruction as to the effect of an aggressor withdrawing from an encounter and communicating the intent to withdraw is only necessary where the particular factual situation supports such an instruction.... 2019See State v. Diggs , 219 Conn. 295 , 299, 592 A.2d 949 (1991) ("[A]n *717 instruction as to the effect of an aggressor withdrawing from an encounter and communicating the intent to withdraw is only necessary where the particular factual situation supports such an instruction.... | 1 | 1 |
State v. Prioleaugreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., State v. Prioleau , 235 Conn. 274 , 277-78, 292-94, 664 A.2d 743 (1995) (initial aggressor instruction given where defendant and victim had heated argument in November, 1991, when defendant stated he would "get" the victim, who expressed fear and concern that situation had escalated out of control, and on December 1, 1991, defendant shot and killed victim). 2019See, e.g., State v. Prioleau , 235 Conn. 274 , 277-78, 292-94, 664 A.2d 743 (1995) (initial aggressor instruction given where defendant and victim had heated argument in November, 1991, when defendant stated he would "get" the victim, who expressed fear and concern that situation had escalated out of control, and on December 1, 1991, defendant shot and killed victim). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Skellygreen2 sentences2019See State v. Skelly , supra, 124 Conn. App. at 168 -70 , 3 A.3d 1064 . 2019See State v. Skelly , supra, 124 Conn. App. at 168 -70 , 3 A.3d 1064 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Paynegreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 562–63, 34 A.3d 370 (2012) (explaining that, when improper remarks by prosecutor implicate defen- dant’s due process rights, defendant must prove that remarks were both improper and harmful, but that, upon showing by defendant that prosecu- tor’s improper remarks violate specifically enumerated constitutional right, such as defendant’s right to remain silent or to present defense, burden falls on state to establish harmlessness beyond reasonable doubt). 2015See, e.g., State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 562–63, 34 A.3d 370 (2012) (explaining that, when improper remarks by prosecutor implicate defen- dant’s due process rights, defendant must prove that remarks were both improper and harmful, but that, upon showing by defendant that prosecu- tor’s improper remarks violate specifically enumerated constitutional right, such as defendant’s right to remain silent or to present defense, burden falls on state to establish harmlessness beyond reasonable doubt). | 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 sentences2009He therefore seeks review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 2009He therefore seeks review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). | 2 | 1998–2009 |
State v. Beltran
green
2 sentences2003The defendant relies on State v. Beltran, 246 Conn. 268, 276-77 , 717 A.2d 168 (1998), to support his proposition that the charge to the jury was improper because it was unsupported by the evidence and that the initial aggressor principle was not an issue in the case. 2003The defendant relies on State v. Beltran, 246 Conn. 268, 276-77 , 717 A.2d 168 (1998), to support his proposition that the charge to the jury was improper because it was unsupported by the evidence and that the initial aggressor principle was not an issue in the case. | 2 | 2001–2003 |
State v. Turner
green
2 sentences2019Section 53a-19 (c) provides that "a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of physical force by such other person ...." See also State v. Corchado , 188 Conn. 653 , 664, 453 A.2d 427 (1982) ; State v. Turner , 33 Conn. App. 616 , 618, 637 A.2d 3 (1994). 2019Section 53a-19 (c) provides that "a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of physical force by such other person ...." See also State v. Corchado , 188 Conn. 653 , 664, 453 A.2d 427 (1982) ; State v. Turner , 33 Conn. App. 616 , 618, 637 A.2d 3 (1994). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Corchado
green
2 sentences2019Section 53a-19 (c) provides that "a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of physical force by such other person ...." See also State v. Corchado , 188 Conn. 653 , 664, 453 A.2d 427 (1982) ; State v. Turner , 33 Conn. App. 616 , 618, 637 A.2d 3 (1994). 2019Section 53a-19 (c) provides that "a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of physical force by such other person ...." See also State v. Corchado , 188 Conn. 653 , 664, 453 A.2d 427 (1982) ; State v. Turner , 33 Conn. App. 616 , 618, 637 A.2d 3 (1994). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. BB
green
2 sentences2015Moreover, when I compare the text of § 53a-19 (c) (3), the combat by agreement exception to self-defense, with the text of § 53a-19 (c) (2), the initial aggressor exception to self-defense, the absence of any language in subdivision (3) indicating that a defendant may justify the use of physical force in a combat by agreement further compels the conclusion that subdivision (3) does not allow a defendant to rely on a claim of self- defense in a combat by agreement. ‘‘Under well estab- lished rules of statutory construction, [w]here a statute, with reference to one subject contains a given provi 2015Moreover, when I compare the text of § 53a-19 (c) (3), the combat by agreement exception to self-defense, with the text of § 53a-19 (c) (2), the initial aggressor exception to self-defense, the absence of any language in subdivision (3) indicating that a defendant may justify the use of physical force in a combat by agreement further compels the conclusion that subdivision (3) does not allow a defendant to rely on a claim of self- defense in a combat by agreement. ‘‘Under well estab- lished rules of statutory construction, [w]here a statute, with reference to one subject contains a given provi | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Ramirez
green
1 sentence2010The court’s use of the word retreat did not invoke the legal doctrine of the duty to retreat but rather was used synonymously with the word withdraw.”), aff'd, 292 *29 Conn. 586, 973 A.2d 1251 (2009); 25 see also State v. Pauling, 102 Conn. App. 556, 583-84 , 925 A.2d 1200 (initial aggressor instruction using word “retreating” was proper explanation of § 53a-19 [c] [2]), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 924 , 933 A.2d 727 (2007). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Pauling
green
2 sentences2010The court’s use of the word retreat did not invoke the legal doctrine of the duty to retreat but rather was used synonymously with the word withdraw.”), aff'd, 292 *29 Conn. 586, 973 A.2d 1251 (2009); 25 see also State v. Pauling, 102 Conn. App. 556, 583-84 , 925 A.2d 1200 (initial aggressor instruction using word “retreating” was proper explanation of § 53a-19 [c] [2]), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 924 , 933 A.2d 727 (2007). 2010The court’s use of the word retreat did not invoke the legal doctrine of the duty to retreat but rather was used synonymously with the word withdraw.”), aff'd, 292 *29 Conn. 586, 973 A.2d 1251 (2009); 25 see also State v. Pauling, 102 Conn. App. 556, 583-84 , 925 A.2d 1200 (initial aggressor instruction using word “retreating” was proper explanation of § 53a-19 [c] [2]), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 924 , 933 A.2d 727 (2007). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Pauling
green
1 sentence2010The court’s use of the word retreat did not invoke the legal doctrine of the duty to retreat but rather was used synonymously with the word withdraw.”), aff'd, 292 *29 Conn. 586, 973 A.2d 1251 (2009); 25 see also State v. Pauling, 102 Conn. App. 556, 583-84 , 925 A.2d 1200 (initial aggressor instruction using word “retreating” was proper explanation of § 53a-19 [c] [2]), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 924 , 933 A.2d 727 (2007). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In Re Ryan R.
green
1 sentence2010The court’s use of the word retreat did not invoke the legal doctrine of the duty to retreat but rather was used synonymously with the word withdraw.”), aff'd, 292 *29 Conn. 586, 973 A.2d 1251 (2009); 25 see also State v. Pauling, 102 Conn. App. 556, 583-84 , 925 A.2d 1200 (initial aggressor instruction using word “retreating” was proper explanation of § 53a-19 [c] [2]), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 924 , 933 A.2d 727 (2007). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.