door inquiry in Connecticut

2017In Huckabee , this court determined that the state's introduction of evidence of a defendant's prior escapes from a juvenile detention center was proper after the defendant "opened the door to such inquiry," but that the "introduction of the ... escapes prior to this prosecution, however, should have been accompanied by a limiting instruction that the evidence was to be used solely for the purpose of evaluating the defendant's veracity" and that the "nature of this evidence ... requires a limiting instruction." Id.

2017The petitioner fails to recognize, however, that in Huckabee , which was a direct criminal appeal, not a habeas action, the defendant raised an evidentiary claim that required him to prove that it was "reasonably probable that the jury was misled by the failure to give a limiting instruction." Id. at 575 , 677 A.2d 452 .

2017The petitioner fails to recognize, however, that in Huckabee , which was a direct criminal appeal, not a habeas action, the defendant raised an evidentiary claim that required him to prove that it was "reasonably probable that the jury was misled by the failure to give a limiting instruction." Id. at 575 , 677 A.2d 452 .

2012Rather, “the opening the door doctrine is expressly intended to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 600 , 889 A.2d 885 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006), quoting State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L.

2012Rather, “the opening the door doctrine is expressly intended to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 600 , 889 A.2d 885 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006), quoting State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L.

2012Rather, “the opening the door doctrine is expressly intended to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 600 , 889 A.2d 885 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006), quoting State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L.

2012Rather, “the opening the door doctrine is expressly intended to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 600 , 889 A.2d 885 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006), quoting State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L.

2012Rather, “the opening the door doctrine is expressly intended to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 600 , 889 A.2d 885 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006), quoting State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L.

2012Rather, “the opening the door doctrine is expressly intended to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 600 , 889 A.2d 885 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006), quoting State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L.

2012Rather, “the opening the door doctrine is expressly intended to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 600 , 889 A.2d 885 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006), quoting State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L.

2012Rather, “the opening the door doctrine is expressly intended to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 600 , 889 A.2d 885 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006), quoting State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L.

2012Rather, “the opening the door doctrine is expressly intended to prevent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Powell, 93 Conn. App. 592, 600 , 889 A.2d 885 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 924 , 895 A.2d 797 (2006), quoting State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 187 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L.

2011Rptr. 116 ) (special defenses not allowed because they did not relate directly to payment, discharge, release, satisfaction or invalidity nor were they allegations of mistake, accident, or fraud); Heritage Sound Condominium Assn. v. Nucifora, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, Docket No. CV-98-061169-S, 2000 WL 343970 (March 13, 2000) (special defense not allowed because it did not arise from same transaction); Bayview Condominium Assn. v. Skibitcky, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, Docket No. CV-97-0060615-S, 1998 WL 175394 (April 2, 1998) ( 21 Conn. L.

2011This subsection does not affect the priority of mechanics' or materialmen's liens or the priority of liens for other assessments made by the association...." [6] The plaintiff claims that it levied fines against the defendant because he replaced a window in his unit with a door in violation of the plaintiff's bylaws, rules and procedures. [7] The original motion for summary judgment as to liability only was filed on January 20, 2010. [8] As we understand this record, it appears that although the court denied the defendant's request to amend his answer, special defense, and counterclaim, the co

2007The reason underlying the "opening the door doctrine" is to "[p]revent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Johnson, supra, 29 Conn.App. at 588 , 617 A.2d 174 .

2007The reason underlying the "opening the door doctrine" is to "[p]revent a defendant from successfully excluding inadmissible prosecution evidence and then selectively introducing pieces of this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the prosecution to place the evidence in its proper context." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Johnson, supra, 29 Conn.App. at 588 , 617 A.2d 174 .

2007The rule thus prevents a party from successfully excluding evidence favorable to his opponent and then selectively introducing this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the opponent to place the evidence in proper context.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Morrill, 154 N.H. 547, 549-50 , 914 A.2d 1206 (2006); see also State v. White, 155 N.H. 119, 124 , 920 A.2d 1216 (2007) (“[T]he ‘opening the door’ doctrine subsumes within it two doctrines governing the admissibility of evidence. . . .

2007The rule thus prevents a party from successfully excluding evidence favorable to his opponent and then selectively introducing this evidence for his own advantage, without allowing the opponent to place the evidence in proper context.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Morrill, 154 N.H. 547, 549-50 , 914 A.2d 1206 (2006); see also State v. White, 155 N.H. 119, 124 , 920 A.2d 1216 (2007) (“[T]he ‘opening the door’ doctrine subsumes within it two doctrines governing the admissibility of evidence. . . .

1977State v. Malley, 167 Conn. 379, 384 , 355 A.2d 292 ; see Akers v. Singer, 158 Conn. 29, 36 , 255 A.2d 858 ; Fahey v. Clark, 125 Conn. 44, 47 , 3 A.2d 313 .

1977State v. Malley, 167 Conn. 379, 384 , 355 A.2d 292 ; see Akers v. Singer, 158 Conn. 29, 36 , 255 A.2d 858 ; Fahey v. Clark, 125 Conn. 44, 47 , 3 A.2d 313 .

1977State v. Malley, 167 Conn. 379, 384 , 355 A.2d 292 ; see Akers v. Singer, 158 Conn. 29, 36 , 255 A.2d 858 ; Fahey v. Clark, 125 Conn. 44, 47 , 3 A.2d 313 .

1977State v. Malley, 167 Conn. 379, 384 , 355 A.2d 292 ; see Akers v. Singer, 158 Conn. 29, 36 , 255 A.2d 858 ; Fahey v. Clark, 125 Conn. 44, 47 , 3 A.2d 313 .