cross-examination defense in Connecticut

9 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1972–2020 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 (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Davis v. Alaskagreen scotus · 1974 · cited in 3 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1991–2000 2 sentences 2000We must, therefore, conduct a two-step analysis, determining first whether the cross-examination permitted to defense counsel comported with sixth amendment standards; see Davis v. Alaska, supra, 415 U.S. 308 ; and second, whether the trial court abused its discretion in restricting the scope of that cross-examination. 1999We must, therefore, conduct a two-step analysis, determining first whether the cross-examination permitted to defense counsel comported with sixth amendment standards; see Davis v. Alaska, supra, 415 U.S. 308 ; and second whether the trial court abused its discretion in restricting the scope of that cross-examination.	2	3

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 (8)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Reeves neutral connappct · 2000 2 sentences 2014We must, therefore, conduct a two-step analysis, determin- ing first whether the cross-examination permitted to defense counsel comported with sixth amendment stan- dards . . . and second, whether the trial court abused its discretion in restricting the scope of that cross-exam- ination.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reeves, 57 Conn. App. 337, 346 , 748 A.2d 357 (2000). ‘‘The primary interest secured by confrontation is the right to cross-examination . . . and an important func- tion of cross-examination is the exposure of a witness’ motivation in testifying 2014We must, therefore, conduct a two-step analysis, determin- ing first whether the cross-examination permitted to defense counsel comported with sixth amendment stan- dards . . . and second, whether the trial court abused its discretion in restricting the scope of that cross-exam- ination.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reeves, 57 Conn. App. 337, 346 , 748 A.2d 357 (2000). ‘‘The primary interest secured by confrontation is the right to cross-examination . . . and an important func- tion of cross-examination is the exposure of a witness’ motivation in testifying	4	2000–2020
State v. Castro green conn · 1985 2 sentences 2000State v. Payne, 219 Conn. 93, 111 , 591 A.2d 1246 (1991); State v. Castro, 196 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 493 A.2d 223 (1985); State v. Gaynor, supra, 510 ; State v. Colon, 28 Conn. App. 231, 235 , 611 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 922 , 614 A.2d 827 (1992). 2000State v. Payne, 219 Conn. 93, 111 , 591 A.2d 1246 (1991); State v. Castro, 196 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 493 A.2d 223 (1985); State v. Gaynor, supra, 510 ; State v. Colon, 28 Conn. App. 231, 235 , 611 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 922 , 614 A.2d 827 (1992).	2	1999–2000
State v. Payne green conn · 1991 2 sentences 2000State v. Payne, 219 Conn. 93, 111 , 591 A.2d 1246 (1991); State v. Castro, 196 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 493 A.2d 223 (1985); State v. Gaynor, supra, 510 ; State v. Colon, 28 Conn. App. 231, 235 , 611 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 922 , 614 A.2d 827 (1992). 2000State v. Payne, 219 Conn. 93, 111 , 591 A.2d 1246 (1991); State v. Castro, 196 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 493 A.2d 223 (1985); State v. Gaynor, supra, 510 ; State v. Colon, 28 Conn. App. 231, 235 , 611 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 922 , 614 A.2d 827 (1992).	2	1999–2000
In re Mark C. green conn · 1992 2 sentences 2000State v. Payne, 219 Conn. 93, 111 , 591 A.2d 1246 (1991); State v. Castro, 196 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 493 A.2d 223 (1985); State v. Gaynor, supra, 510 ; State v. Colon, 28 Conn. App. 231, 235 , 611 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 922 , 614 A.2d 827 (1992). 1999See State v. Gaynor, supra, 510 ; State v. Castro, 196 Conn. 421, 424 , 493 A.2d 223 (1985); State v. Payne, 219 Conn. 93, 111 , 591 A.2d 1246 (1991); State v. Colon, 28 Conn. App. 231, 235-36 , 611 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 922 , 614 A.2d 827 (1992).	2	1999–2000
State v. Colon green conn · 1992 2 sentences 2000State v. Payne, 219 Conn. 93, 111 , 591 A.2d 1246 (1991); State v. Castro, 196 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 493 A.2d 223 (1985); State v. Gaynor, supra, 510 ; State v. Colon, 28 Conn. App. 231, 235 , 611 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 922 , 614 A.2d 827 (1992). 1999See State v. Gaynor, supra, 510 ; State v. Castro, 196 Conn. 421, 424 , 493 A.2d 223 (1985); State v. Payne, 219 Conn. 93, 111 , 591 A.2d 1246 (1991); State v. Colon, 28 Conn. App. 231, 235-36 , 611 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 922 , 614 A.2d 827 (1992).	2	1999–2000
State v. Colon green connappct · 1992 2 sentences 2000State v. Payne, 219 Conn. 93, 111 , 591 A.2d 1246 (1991); State v. Castro, 196 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 493 A.2d 223 (1985); State v. Gaynor, supra, 510 ; State v. Colon, 28 Conn. App. 231, 235 , 611 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 922 , 614 A.2d 827 (1992). 2000State v. Payne, 219 Conn. 93, 111 , 591 A.2d 1246 (1991); State v. Castro, 196 Conn. 421, 424-25 , 493 A.2d 223 (1985); State v. Gaynor, supra, 510 ; State v. Colon, 28 Conn. App. 231, 235 , 611 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 922 , 614 A.2d 827 (1992).	2	1999–2000
State v. Ross green conn · 1999 2 sentences 2000General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-46a (c) provides in relevant part: “Any information relevant to any mitigating factor may be presented by either the state or the defendant, regardless of its admissibility under the rules governing admission of evidence in trials in criminal matters . ...” In State v. Ross, 251 Conn. 579, 583 , 742 A.2d 312 (1999), we recently held that this statutory language must be strictly construed to allow the admission of any evidence relevant to the mitigating factors. 2000General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-46a (c) provides in relevant part: “Any information relevant to any mitigating factor may be presented by either the state or the defendant, regardless of its admissibility under the rules governing admission of evidence in trials in criminal matters . ...” In State v. Ross, 251 Conn. 579, 583 , 742 A.2d 312 (1999), we recently held that this statutory language must be strictly construed to allow the admission of any evidence relevant to the mitigating factors.	1	2000–2000
Felix v. Hall-Brooke Sanitarium green conn · 1953 1 sentence 1972Felix v. Hall-Brooke Sanitarium, 140 Conn. 496 , 502 . . . ." The plaintiff in this case was represented during the course of the trial by competent counsel who was capable of conducting *Page 507 a cross-examination of the defense witnesses sufficient for the protection of his client's rights.	1	1972–1972

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-119 (3) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a (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

NY 65 (1896–2024) TX 17 (1924–2020) IL 17 (1966–2025) MI 12 (1933–2024) CA 11 (1938–2022) FL 10 (1983–2019) PA 9 (1936–2019) RI 9 (1993–2021) CT 9 (1972–2020) AZ 7 (1973–2023) WA 6 (1910–2015) MA 6 (1978–2023) MO 5 (1973–2023) MD 5 (1983–2001) GA 5 (1983–2010) IN 5 (1989–2013) NM 4 (1998–2025) KY 4 (2013–2024) AL 4 (1954–1986) IA 4 (1949–2020) MS 4 (1990–1998) LA 4 (1953–2011) VA 4 (1922–2017) TN 3 (1922–1993) DC 3 (1976–2019) OH 3 (2004–2022) SC 3 (2004–2018) WI 2 (1994–2007) WY 2 (2008–2010) OK 2 (1975–2007) ME 2 (1985–2004) NC 2 (1997–2004)

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

Your account

Appearance