exception out hearing in Connecticut

1995State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579, 586 , 569 A.2d 534 (1990); State v. King, 24 Conn. App. 586, 590-91 , 590 A.2d 490 , cert. denied, 219 Conn. 912 , 593 A.2d 136 (1991).

1995State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579, 586 , 569 A.2d 534 (1990); State v. King, 24 Conn. App. 586, 590-91 , 590 A.2d 490 , cert. denied, 219 Conn. 912 , 593 A.2d 136 (1991).

1995State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579, 586 , 569 A.2d 534 (1990); State v. King, 24 Conn. App. 586, 590-91 , 590 A.2d 490 , cert. denied, 219 Conn. 912 , 593 A.2d 136 (1991).

1995State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579, 586 , 569 A.2d 534 (1990); State v. King, 24 Conn. App. 586, 590-91 , 590 A.2d 490 , cert. denied, 219 Conn. 912 , 593 A.2d 136 (1991).

1995State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579, 586 , 569 A.2d 534 (1990); State v. King, 24 Conn. App. 586, 590-91 , 590 A.2d 490 , cert. denied, 219 Conn. 912 , 593 A.2d 136 (1991).

1995State v. Hall, 213 Conn. 579, 586 , 569 A.2d 534 (1990); State v. King, 24 Conn. App. 586, 590-91 , 590 A.2d 490 , cert. denied, 219 Conn. 912 , 593 A.2d 136 (1991).

1994Our Supreme Court has found that “[t]he failure of the defendant to state distinctly the matter being objected to immediately after the conclusion of the charge ordinarily renders the claim of error unreviewable on appeal.” State v. Utz, 201 Conn. 190, 208 , 513 A.2d 1191 (1986).

1994Our Supreme Court has found that “[t]he failure of the defendant to state distinctly the matter being objected to immediately after the conclusion of the charge ordinarily renders the claim of error unreviewable on appeal.” State v. Utz, 201 Conn. 190, 208 , 513 A.2d 1191 (1986).

1994Upon request, opportunity shall be given to present the exception out of the hearing of the jury.” See State v. Ulen, 31 Conn. App. 20, 36 , 623 A.2d 70 , cert. denied, 226 Conn. 905 , 625 A.2d 1378 (1993).

1994Upon request, opportunity shall be given to present the exception out of the hearing of the jury.” See State v. Ulen, 31 Conn. App. 20, 36 , 623 A.2d 70 , cert. denied, 226 Conn. 905 , 625 A.2d 1378 (1993).

1994Upon request, opportunity shall be given to present the exception out of the hearing of the jury.” See State v. Ulen, 31 Conn. App. 20, 36 , 623 A.2d 70 , cert. denied, 226 Conn. 905 , 625 A.2d 1378 (1993).

1994Upon request, opportunity shall be given to present the exception out of the hearing of the jury.” See State v. Ulen, 31 Conn. App. 20, 36 , 623 A.2d 70 , cert. denied, 226 Conn. 905 , 625 A.2d 1378 (1993).

1993“The defendant must provide the trial court with the factual and legal basis for the charge before an appellate court can find error in the court’s refusal to give the charge as requested.” State v. Robinson, 14 Conn. App. 40, 45-46 , 539 A.2d 606 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 899 , 109 S. Ct. 244 , 102 L.

1993“The defendant must provide the trial court with the factual and legal basis for the charge before an appellate court can find error in the court’s refusal to give the charge as requested.” State v. Robinson, 14 Conn. App. 40, 45-46 , 539 A.2d 606 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 899 , 109 S. Ct. 244 , 102 L.

1993Upon request, opportunity shall be given to present the exception out of the hearing of the jury.” The United States Supreme Court predicated its holding in Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. , 112 S. Ct. 466 , 116 L.

1993Upon request, opportunity shall be given to present the exception out of the hearing of the jury.” The United States Supreme Court predicated its holding in Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. , 112 S. Ct. 466 , 116 L.

1993“The defendant must provide the trial court with the factual and legal basis for the charge before an appellate court can find error in the court’s refusal to give the charge as requested.” State v. Robinson, 14 Conn. App. 40, 45-46 , 539 A.2d 606 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 899 , 109 S. Ct. 244 , 102 L.

1993“The defendant must provide the trial court with the factual and legal basis for the charge before an appellate court can find error in the court’s refusal to give the charge as requested.” State v. Robinson, 14 Conn. App. 40, 45-46 , 539 A.2d 606 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 899 , 109 S. Ct. 244 , 102 L.

1993“The defendant must provide the trial court with the factual and legal basis for the charge before an appellate court can find error in the court’s refusal to give the charge as requested.” State v. Robinson, 14 Conn. App. 40, 45-46 , 539 A.2d 606 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 899 , 109 S. Ct. 244 , 102 L.

1991Because the relevant issue is whether it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled; State v. Sinclair, 197 Conn. 574, 581 , 500 A.2d 539 (1985); our inquiry is an objective one and there is no need for the record to provide evidence that the jury actually was confused in order for us to review the claim.

1991Because the relevant issue is whether it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled; State v. Sinclair, 197 Conn. 574, 581 , 500 A.2d 539 (1985); our inquiry is an objective one and there is no need for the record to provide evidence that the jury actually was confused in order for us to review the claim.

1991Rule 3.7 provides in pertinent part: “(a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness except where: (1) The testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) The testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or (3) Disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.” (Emphasis added.) That was precisely the theory of defense in Smith , wherein the defendant based this defense on the complainant’s testimony that, after a certain point, she ceased resisting and decided to “give in

1991Rule 3.7 provides in pertinent part: “(a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness except where: (1) The testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) The testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or (3) Disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.” (Emphasis added.) That was precisely the theory of defense in Smith , wherein the defendant based this defense on the complainant’s testimony that, after a certain point, she ceased resisting and decided to “give in

1991Upon request, opportunity shall be given to present the exception out of the hearing of the jury.” In State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), we held that “a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional 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 alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to har

1991Upon request, opportunity shall be given to present the exception out of the hearing of the jury.” In State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), we held that “a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional 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 alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to har

1989Assignments of error neither briefed nor argued are deemed abandoned. “ ‘Assignments of error are also deemed to be abandoned where they are merely mentioned in the brief without any discussion of the particular issues mentioned.’ ” Stoner v. Stoner, 163 Conn. 345, 349 , 307 A.2d 146 (1972); Varley v. Varley, 189 Conn. 490, 504 , 457 A.2d 1065 (1983).

1989Assignments of error neither briefed nor argued are deemed abandoned. “ ‘Assignments of error are also deemed to be abandoned where they are merely mentioned in the brief without any discussion of the particular issues mentioned.’ ” Stoner v. Stoner, 163 Conn. 345, 349 , 307 A.2d 146 (1972); Varley v. Varley, 189 Conn. 490, 504 , 457 A.2d 1065 (1983).

1989Assignments of error neither briefed nor argued are deemed abandoned. “ ‘Assignments of error are also deemed to be abandoned where they are merely mentioned in the brief without any discussion of the particular issues mentioned.’ ” Stoner v. Stoner, 163 Conn. 345, 349 , 307 A.2d 146 (1972); Varley v. Varley, 189 Conn. 490, 504 , 457 A.2d 1065 (1983).

1989Assignments of error neither briefed nor argued are deemed abandoned. “ ‘Assignments of error are also deemed to be abandoned where they are merely mentioned in the brief without any discussion of the particular issues mentioned.’ ” Stoner v. Stoner, 163 Conn. 345, 349 , 307 A.2d 146 (1972); Varley v. Varley, 189 Conn. 490, 504 , 457 A.2d 1065 (1983).

1989Defense counsel explained his failure to object to the answer earlier: “I didn’t draw attention to it at the time because I didn’t want the jury to—maybe I thought it might—I was hoping it would slip by them.” “A motion in limine ‘in a broad sense [refers] to any motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered. ’ Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 , 40 n.2, 105 S. Ct. 460 , 83 L.

1989Defense counsel explained his failure to object to the answer earlier: “I didn’t draw attention to it at the time because I didn’t want the jury to—maybe I thought it might—I was hoping it would slip by them.” “A motion in limine ‘in a broad sense [refers] to any motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered. ’ Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 , 40 n.2, 105 S. Ct. 460 , 83 L.

1987Acts 404, No. 420, c. 3 (the codification of the charter of the city of New Britain); see also General Statutes § 52-163; State v. Lindsay, 109 Conn. 239, 241-42 , 146 A. 290 (1929).

1987Acts 404, No. 420, c. 3 (the codification of the charter of the city of New Britain); see also General Statutes § 52-163; State v. Lindsay, 109 Conn. 239, 241-42 , 146 A. 290 (1929).