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 3 courts 1979–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dinkins v. Kinneygreen2 sentences1986State v. Arroyo, 180 Conn. 171, 175 , 429 A.2d 457 (1980), quoting Sandstrom v. Montana, supra, 517 . 1980See also State v. *275 Arroyo, 180 Conn. 171 , 429 A.2d 457 ; State v. Harrison, 178 Conn. 689 , 425 A.2d 111 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Arroyogreen2 sentences1986State v. Arroyo, 180 Conn. 171, 175 , 429 A.2d 457 (1980), quoting Sandstrom v. Montana, supra, 517 . 1980See also State v. *275 Arroyo, 180 Conn. 171 , 429 A.2d 457 ; State v. Harrison, 178 Conn. 689 , 425 A.2d 111 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Pinagreen2 sentences2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L. 2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L. | 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. Harrison
green
2 sentences1981You must determine from all the evidence, including the prima facie presumption, if *686 you find that it comes into operation, whether the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Harrison, supra, stands for the proposition that “a jury instruction on the element of intent that is worded in terms of a ‘presumption’ and not of an ‘inference’ without a clear instruction on the legal effect of the presumption is unconstitutional .... [Further,] the impact upon the minds of a jury of such an instruction may be either to establish the defendant’s inte 1981You must determine from all the evidence, including the prima facie presumption, if *686 you find that it comes into operation, whether the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Harrison, supra, stands for the proposition that “a jury instruction on the element of intent that is worded in terms of a ‘presumption’ and not of an ‘inference’ without a clear instruction on the legal effect of the presumption is unconstitutional .... [Further,] the impact upon the minds of a jury of such an instruction may be either to establish the defendant’s inte | 3 | 1980–1981 |
Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
green
1 sentence2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Yuen v. Internal Revenue Service
green
1 sentence2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Stankowski
green
2 sentences2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L. 2002See State v. Pina, 186 Conn. 261, 263 , 440 A.2d 967 (1982) (“[i]t is the lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption, [that] mak[es] it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the use of the word presume in an unconstitutional manner” [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 151-53 , 439 A.2d 918 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052 , 102 S. Ct. 596 , 70 L. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
O'Dea v. Amodeo
green
1 sentence1996Then the legal effect of the presumption disappears but receipt may still be found based on all fair inferences that can be drawn from the evidence, O'Dea v. Amodeo, 118 Conn. 58 , 61-62 (1934), see Connecticut Evidence, Tait LaPlante, § 5.2.2, § 5.56. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Carr v. Woolwich
green
1 sentence1990Carr, 7 Conn. App. at 691 -92 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Mason
green
1 sentence1983“It is not the use of the word ‘presume’ itself which renders an instruction invalid; rather it is the ‘lack of qualifying instructions as to the legal effect of the presumption,’ making it possible for a reasonable jury to interpret the presumption in an unconstitutional manner.” Id., 583 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Sandstrom v. Montana
green
2 sentences1979The United States Supreme Court has recently held that a jury instruction on the element of intent that is worded in terms of a “presumption” and not of an “inference” without a clear instruction on the legal effect of the presumption is unconstitutional under the holdings of Patterson v. New York, supra, Mullaney v. Wilbur, supra, and In re Winship, supra. Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S. Ct. 2450 , 61 L. 1979The United States Supreme Court has recently held that a jury instruction on the element of intent that is worded in terms of a “presumption” and not of an “inference” without a clear instruction on the legal effect of the presumption is unconstitutional under the holdings of Patterson v. New York, supra, Mullaney v. Wilbur, supra, and In re Winship, supra. Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S. Ct. 2450 , 61 L. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.