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 3 courts 1988–2019 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Nieves v. Comm'r of Corr.green2 sentences2017We then turn to the only preserved claim that the defendant advances on appeal, which is that the DVD was not sufficiently authenticated and, thus, should not have been admitted. ‘‘We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence, if premised on a correct view of the law . . . for an abuse of discretion.’’ State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207, 218 , 926 A.2d 633 (2007); see also Nieves v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 587 , 597 n.12, 152 A.3d 570 (2016) (because ‘‘[t]he trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissi- bility . . . of evidence . . . [t]he trial court’s r 2017We then turn to the only preserved claim that the defendant advances on appeal, which is that the DVD was not sufficiently authenticated and, thus, should not have been admitted. ‘‘We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence, if premised on a correct view of the law . . . for an abuse of discretion.’’ State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207, 218 , 926 A.2d 633 (2007); see also Nieves v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 587 , 597 n.12, 152 A.3d 570 (2016) (because ‘‘[t]he trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissi- bility . . . of evidence . . . [t]he trial court’s r | 2 | 2 |
Nieves v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen2 sentences2017We then turn to the only preserved claim that the defendant advances on appeal, which is that the DVD was not sufficiently authenticated and, thus, should not have been admitted. ‘‘We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence, if premised on a correct view of the law . . . for an abuse of discretion.’’ State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207, 218 , 926 A.2d 633 (2007); see also Nieves v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 587 , 597 n.12, 152 A.3d 570 (2016) (because ‘‘[t]he trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissi- bility . . . of evidence . . . [t]he trial court’s r 2017We then turn to the only preserved claim that the defendant advances on appeal, which is that the DVD was not sufficiently authenticated and, thus, should not have been admitted. ‘‘We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence, if premised on a correct view of the law . . . for an abuse of discretion.’’ State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207, 218 , 926 A.2d 633 (2007); see also Nieves v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 587 , 597 n.12, 152 A.3d 570 (2016) (because ‘‘[t]he trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissi- bility . . . of evidence . . . [t]he trial court’s r | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Dominguez Benitezgreen2 sentences2018"It is only for certain structural errors undermining the fairness of a criminal proceeding as a whole that even preserved error requires reversal without regard to the mistake's effect on the proceeding." United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74 , 81, 124 S.Ct. 2333 , 159 L.Ed. 2d 157 (2004). 2018"It is only for certain structural errors undermining the fairness of a criminal proceeding as a whole that even preserved error requires reversal without regard to the mistake's effect on the proceeding." United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74 , 81, 124 S.Ct. 2333 , 159 L.Ed. 2d 157 (2004). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Santangelogreen2 sentences2017See State v. Santangelo , 205 Conn. 578 , 584, 534 A.2d 1175 (1987). 2017See State v. Santangelo , 205 Conn. 578 , 584, 534 A.2d 1175 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Francis D.green2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Francis D. , 75 Conn.App. 1 , 11, 815 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 263 Conn. 909 , 819 A.2d 842 (2003). 2017See, e.g., State v. Francis D. , 75 Conn.App. 1 , 11, 815 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 263 Conn. 909 , 819 A.2d 842 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Francis D.green2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Francis D. , 75 Conn.App. 1 , 11, 815 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 263 Conn. 909 , 819 A.2d 842 (2003). 2017See, e.g., State v. Francis D. , 75 Conn.App. 1 , 11, 815 A.2d 191 , cert. denied, 263 Conn. 909 , 819 A.2d 842 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2017The abuse of discretion standard requires that ‘‘every reasonable presumption . . . be given in favor of the trial court’s rulings on evidentiary matters.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Gauthier, 140 Conn. App. 69 , 79–80, 57 A.3d 849 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 907 , 61 A.3d 1097 (2013). ‘‘The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence suffi- cient to support a finding that the offered evidence is what its proponent claims it to be.’’ Conn. Code Evid. § 9-1 (a); see also State v. Garcia, 299 Conn. 39, 57 , 7 A.3d 355 (2010) 2017The abuse of discretion standard requires that ‘‘every reasonable presumption . . . be given in favor of the trial court’s rulings on evidentiary matters.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Gauthier, 140 Conn. App. 69 , 79–80, 57 A.3d 849 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 907 , 61 A.3d 1097 (2013). ‘‘The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence suffi- cient to support a finding that the offered evidence is what its proponent claims it to be.’’ Conn. Code Evid. § 9-1 (a); see also State v. Garcia, 299 Conn. 39, 57 , 7 A.3d 355 (2010) | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Fulminantegreen2 sentences2016See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , [309-10, 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ] (1991) (giving examples)."(Emphasis added.) United States v. Dominguez Beni tez, 542 U.S. 74 , 81, 124 S.Ct. 2333 , 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004). 2016See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , [309-10, 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 ] (1991) (giving examples)."(Emphasis added.) United States v. Dominguez Beni tez, 542 U.S. 74 , 81, 124 S.Ct. 2333 , 159 L.Ed.2d 157 (2004). | 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. Saucier
green
2 sentences2017We then turn to the only preserved claim that the defendant advances on appeal, which is that the DVD was not sufficiently authenticated and, thus, should not have been admitted. ‘‘We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence, if premised on a correct view of the law . . . for an abuse of discretion.’’ State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207, 218 , 926 A.2d 633 (2007); see also Nieves v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 587 , 597 n.12, 152 A.3d 570 (2016) (because ‘‘[t]he trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissi- bility . . . of evidence . . . [t]he trial court’s r 2017We then turn to the only preserved claim that the defendant advances on appeal, which is that the DVD was not sufficiently authenticated and, thus, should not have been admitted. ‘‘We review the trial court’s decision to admit evidence, if premised on a correct view of the law . . . for an abuse of discretion.’’ State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207, 218 , 926 A.2d 633 (2007); see also Nieves v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 587 , 597 n.12, 152 A.3d 570 (2016) (because ‘‘[t]he trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissi- bility . . . of evidence . . . [t]he trial court’s r | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Salmond
green
2 sentences2019The defendant also attempts to distinguish Salmond from the present case because Salmond involved a witness' testimony about events he had personally witnessed from his "front row seat." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Salmond , supra, 179 Conn. App. at 630 , 180 A.3d 979 . 2019The defendant also attempts to distinguish Salmond from the present case because Salmond involved a witness' testimony about events he had personally witnessed from his "front row seat." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Salmond , supra, 179 Conn. App. at 630 , 180 A.3d 979 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Gauthier
green
2 sentences2017The abuse of discretion standard requires that ‘‘every reasonable presumption . . . be given in favor of the trial court’s rulings on evidentiary matters.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Gauthier, 140 Conn. App. 69 , 79–80, 57 A.3d 849 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 907 , 61 A.3d 1097 (2013). ‘‘The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence suffi- cient to support a finding that the offered evidence is what its proponent claims it to be.’’ Conn. Code Evid. § 9-1 (a); see also State v. Garcia, 299 Conn. 39, 57 , 7 A.3d 355 (2010) 2017The abuse of discretion standard requires that ‘‘every reasonable presumption . . . be given in favor of the trial court’s rulings on evidentiary matters.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Gauthier, 140 Conn. App. 69 , 79–80, 57 A.3d 849 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 907 , 61 A.3d 1097 (2013). ‘‘The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence suffi- cient to support a finding that the offered evidence is what its proponent claims it to be.’’ Conn. Code Evid. § 9-1 (a); see also State v. Garcia, 299 Conn. 39, 57 , 7 A.3d 355 (2010) | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Robertson
green
2 sentences2016There was no evidence that the petitioner could have strengthened his own case or arguments in support of severance. [The first habeas court] relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Robertson , [ 254 Conn. 739 , 760 A.2d 82 (2000) ] ... which addressed a preserved claim about severance, contrary to the petitioner's unpreserved claim on direct appeal, to conclude that the petitioner's and Robertson's defenses were not antagonistic. 9 That is, there was no basis that necessitated severance of the codefendants' trials. [The first habeas court] also concluded that Attorney Gallucci, who 2016There was no evidence that the petitioner could have strengthened his own case or arguments in support of severance. [The first habeas court] relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Robertson , [ 254 Conn. 739 , 760 A.2d 82 (2000) ] ... which addressed a preserved claim about severance, contrary to the petitioner's unpreserved claim on direct appeal, to conclude that the petitioner's and Robertson's defenses were not antagonistic. 9 That is, there was no basis that necessitated severance of the codefendants' trials. [The first habeas court] also concluded that Attorney Gallucci, who | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Glenn
green
2 sentences2003The team was acutely aware of what was then a recent decision of the state Supreme Court, State v. Glenn, 194 Conn. 483 (1984), in which the Court had rejected a preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct in circumstances more egregious than that presented in this case. 2003This failure to preserve the issue would have proven a difficult hurdle to be overcome by appellate counsel in appeal, particularly in light of the decision in State v. Glenn , 194 Conn. 483 (1984), in which the Court had rejected a preserved claim of prosecutorial misconduct in circumstances more egregious than that presented in this case. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Evans
green
2 sentences1988The defendant sought review under the rule of State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973), with respect to two of these and for the other review either as a preserved error or as “plain error” under Practice Book § 4185. 1988The defendant sought review under the rule of State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973), with respect to two of these and for the other review either as a preserved error or as “plain error” under Practice Book § 4185. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.