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.
9 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2026 6 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. Johnsongreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 351 Conn. 53, 62 , 328 A.3d 143 (2025) (“[t]he state bears the burden of disproving the defendant’s justification defenses beyond a reasonable doubt”). 2026See, e.g., State v. Johnson, 351 Conn. 53, 62 , 328 A.3d 143 (2025) (“[t]he state bears the burden of disproving the defendant’s justification defenses beyond a reasonable doubt”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Matheneygreen1 sentence2026He seeks review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).1 In Connecticut, once a criminal defendant raises the justification defense of self-defense, the state must 1 Pursuant to Golding, “a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitu- tional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alle | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ledbettergreen2 sentences2021In support of that argument, the state notes that appellate courts in this state have relied on waiver to resolve unpreserved double jeopardy claims arising in the context of a successive prosecution; see, e.g., State v. Ledbetter, 240 Conn. 317 , 325–26, 692 A.2d 713 (1997); State v. Belcher, 51 Conn. App. 117 , 122–23, 721 A.2d 899 (1998); but nonetheless have afforded Golding review to unpreserved double jeop- ardy claims arising in the course of a single trial without providing any analysis to explain this apparently disparate treatment of similar claims. 2021In support of that argument, the state notes that appellate courts in this state have relied on waiver to resolve unpreserved double jeopardy claims arising in the context of a successive prosecution; see, e.g., State v. Ledbetter, 240 Conn. 317 , 325–26, 692 A.2d 713 (1997); State v. Belcher, 51 Conn. App. 117 , 122–23, 721 A.2d 899 (1998); but nonetheless have afforded Golding review to unpreserved double jeop- ardy claims arising in the course of a single trial without providing any analysis to explain this apparently disparate treatment of similar claims. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dunstangreen2 sentences2014Because the record in this case is adequate for review and the defendant’s claim impli- cates his right to be sufficiently informed of the nature of the charges against him, pursuant to the federal and state constitutions; see State v. Dunstan, 145 Conn. App. 384 , 395 and n.8, 74 A.3d 559 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 958 , 82 A.3d 626 (2013); we will proceed to review the merits of the defendant’s claim pursuant to Golding. ‘‘[E]nlargement cases involve claims that the trial court expanded the state’s information by instructing the jury on statutory or factual alternatives not charged in the inf 2014Because the record in this case is adequate for review and the defendant’s claim impli- cates his right to be sufficiently informed of the nature of the charges against him, pursuant to the federal and state constitutions; see State v. Dunstan, 145 Conn. App. 384 , 395 and n.8, 74 A.3d 559 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 958 , 82 A.3d 626 (2013); we will proceed to review the merits of the defendant’s claim pursuant to Golding. ‘‘[E]nlargement cases involve claims that the trial court expanded the state’s information by instructing the jury on statutory or factual alternatives not charged in the inf | 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 sentences2026He seeks review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).1 In Connecticut, once a criminal defendant raises the justification defense of self-defense, the state must 1 Pursuant to Golding, “a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitu- tional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alle 2026He seeks review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).1 In Connecticut, once a criminal defendant raises the justification defense of self-defense, the state must 1 Pursuant to Golding, “a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitu- tional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alle | 5 | 2014–2026 |
State v. Kitchens
green
2 sentences2026“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos G., 354 Conn. 21, 26 , 349 A.3d 1 (2026). 4 The state does not argue that the defendant has implicitly waived any challenge to the trial court’s instructions pursuant to State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011). 2026“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos G., 354 Conn. 21, 26 , 349 A.3d 1 (2026). 4 The state does not argue that the defendant has implicitly waived any challenge to the trial court’s instructions pursuant to State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Carlos G.
neutral
1 sentence2026“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos G., 354 Conn. 21, 26 , 349 A.3d 1 (2026). 4 The state does not argue that the defendant has implicitly waived any challenge to the trial court’s instructions pursuant to State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Francis v. Comm'r of Corr.
green
1 sentence2025In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hearl, 182 Conn. App. 237, 265 , 190 A.3d 42 , cert. denied, 330 Conn. 903 , 192 A.3d 425 (2018). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Zoey H.
green
1 sentence2025In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hearl, 182 Conn. App. 237, 265 , 190 A.3d 42 , cert. denied, 330 Conn. 903 , 192 A.3d 425 (2018). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hearl
green
2 sentences2025In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hearl, 182 Conn. App. 237, 265 , 190 A.3d 42 , cert. denied, 330 Conn. 903 , 192 A.3d 425 (2018). 2025In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hearl, 182 Conn. App. 237, 265 , 190 A.3d 42 , cert. denied, 330 Conn. 903 , 192 A.3d 425 (2018). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Juan C.
green
1 sentence2024Under Golding, as modified in In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), ‘‘a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitu- tional error not preserved at trial only if all of the follow- ing conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fun- damental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Robles v. Comm'r of Corr.
green
1 sentence2024Under Golding, as modified in In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), ‘‘a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitu- tional error not preserved at trial only if all of the follow- ing conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fun- damental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Mitchell
neutral
2 sentences2024Under Golding, as modified in In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), ‘‘a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitu- tional error not preserved at trial only if all of the follow- ing conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fun- damental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged 2024Under Golding, as modified in In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), ‘‘a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitu- tional error not preserved at trial only if all of the follow- ing conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fun- damental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Belcher
green
2 sentences2021In support of that argument, the state notes that appellate courts in this state have relied on waiver to resolve unpreserved double jeopardy claims arising in the context of a successive prosecution; see, e.g., State v. Ledbetter, 240 Conn. 317 , 325–26, 692 A.2d 713 (1997); State v. Belcher, 51 Conn. App. 117 , 122–23, 721 A.2d 899 (1998); but nonetheless have afforded Golding review to unpreserved double jeop- ardy claims arising in the course of a single trial without providing any analysis to explain this apparently disparate treatment of similar claims. 2021In support of that argument, the state notes that appellate courts in this state have relied on waiver to resolve unpreserved double jeopardy claims arising in the context of a successive prosecution; see, e.g., State v. Ledbetter, 240 Conn. 317 , 325–26, 692 A.2d 713 (1997); State v. Belcher, 51 Conn. App. 117 , 122–23, 721 A.2d 899 (1998); but nonetheless have afforded Golding review to unpreserved double jeop- ardy claims arising in the course of a single trial without providing any analysis to explain this apparently disparate treatment of similar claims. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
MOZELL v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2014We have made it clear that we will not permit parties to anticipate a favorable decision, reserving a right to impeach it or set it aside if it happens to be against them, for a cause which was well known to them before or during the trial.’’ [Internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert. denied, 297 Conn. 906 , 995 A.2d 634 (2010). 18 Pursuant to Golding: ‘‘[An appellant] can prevail on a claim of constitu- tional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnit 2014We have made it clear that we will not permit parties to anticipate a favorable decision, reserving a right to impeach it or set it aside if it happens to be against them, for a cause which was well known to them before or during the trial.’’ [Internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert. denied, 297 Conn. 906 , 995 A.2d 634 (2010). 18 Pursuant to Golding: ‘‘[An appellant] can prevail on a claim of constitu- tional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnit | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.