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 2003–2021 1 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. DeJesusgreen2 sentences2013In State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418, 470 , 953 A.2d 45 (2008) (en banc) . . . our Supreme Court effectively carved out an additional exception to [those listed in] § 4-5 (b) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence when it recognized a limited exception to the prohibition on the admission of uncharged misconduct evidence in sex crime cases to prove that the defendant had a propensity to engage in aberrant and compulsive criminal sexual behavior. . . . u[l]n DeJesus, the court recognized that evidence routinely admitted under the common plan or scheme exception typically is unrelated to the existence 2013In State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418, 470 , 953 A.2d 45 (2008) (en banc) . . . our Supreme Court effectively carved out an additional exception to [those listed in] § 4-5 (b) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence when it recognized a limited exception to the prohibition on the admission of uncharged misconduct evidence in sex crime cases to prove that the defendant had a propensity to engage in aberrant and compulsive criminal sexual behavior. . . . u[l]n DeJesus, the court recognized that evidence routinely admitted under the common plan or scheme exception typically is unrelated to the existence | 1 | 3 |
State v. James G.green2 sentences2007See, e.g., State v. James G., 268 Conn. 382, 390 , 844 A.2d 810 (2004). 2007See, e.g., State v. James G., 268 Conn. 382, 390 , 844 A.2d 810 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Adrian v. Peoplegreen1 sentence2004Additionally, in Kulmac we cited approvingly of two other cases; United States v. Hadley, 918 F.2d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1990), and Adrian v. People, 770 P.2d 1243, 1245 (Colo. 1989); in which evidence of prior misconduct occurring ten years prior to the charged misconduct had been admitted. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Verl Hadleygreen1 sentence2004Additionally, in Kulmac we cited approvingly of two other cases; United States v. Hadley, 918 F.2d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1990), and Adrian v. People, 770 P.2d 1243, 1245 (Colo. 1989); in which evidence of prior misconduct occurring ten years prior to the charged misconduct had been admitted. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Figueroagreen2 sentences2003The majority reasons that the prior misconduct evidence properly was admitted under the common plan or scheme exception because, although not so similar as to constitute a “signature”; see State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145, 163 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995); there are similarities between the offenses and the victims and the prior offense was not too remote in time to the charged offense. 2003The majority reasons that the prior misconduct evidence properly was admitted under the common plan or scheme exception because, although not so similar as to constitute a “signature”; see State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145, 163 , 665 A.2d 63 (1995); there are similarities between the offenses and the victims and the prior offense was not too remote in time to the charged offense. | 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. Gupta
green
2 sentences2021Nevertheless, in State v. Gupta, 297 Conn. 211 , 225 n.7, 998 A.2d 1085 (2010), overruled on other grounds by State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012), our Supreme Court made clear that, although in DeJesus it ‘‘changed the label of the exception’’ from the common plan or scheme exception to the propensity exception, it ‘‘did not change the parameters that such evidence must satisfy to be admissible. . . . 2021Nevertheless, in State v. Gupta, 297 Conn. 211 , 225 n.7, 998 A.2d 1085 (2010), overruled on other grounds by State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012), our Supreme Court made clear that, although in DeJesus it ‘‘changed the label of the exception’’ from the common plan or scheme exception to the propensity exception, it ‘‘did not change the parameters that such evidence must satisfy to be admissible. . . . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Payne
green
2 sentences2021Nevertheless, in State v. Gupta, 297 Conn. 211 , 225 n.7, 998 A.2d 1085 (2010), overruled on other grounds by State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012), our Supreme Court made clear that, although in DeJesus it ‘‘changed the label of the exception’’ from the common plan or scheme exception to the propensity exception, it ‘‘did not change the parameters that such evidence must satisfy to be admissible. . . . 2021Nevertheless, in State v. Gupta, 297 Conn. 211 , 225 n.7, 998 A.2d 1085 (2010), overruled on other grounds by State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012), our Supreme Court made clear that, although in DeJesus it ‘‘changed the label of the exception’’ from the common plan or scheme exception to the propensity exception, it ‘‘did not change the parameters that such evidence must satisfy to be admissible. . . . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Hauck
green
2 sentences2006We first articulated this rule in State v. Hauck, 172 Conn. 140, 145 , 374 A.2d 150 (1976), and have consistently followed it since. 2006We first articulated this rule in State v. Hauck, 172 Conn. 140, 145 , 374 A.2d 150 (1976), and have consistently followed it since. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Merriam
green
1 sentence2006In such circumstances, and in light of the trial court’s instructions emphasizing that the prior misconduct evidence was not to be considered for the purpose of determining whether the defendant had a propensity to commit the crimes with which he had been charged, we conclude that the improper admission of that prior misconduct evidence to prove identity was harmless.” (Emphasis added.) Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Sierra
green
2 sentences2004Relying on State v. Sierra, 213 Conn. 422 , 568 A.2d 448 (1990), however, the defendant urges that the specific acts of abuse against K and T differed in nature and duration so as not to fall within the common plan or scheme exception to the inadmissibility of prior misconduct evidence. 2004Relying on State v. Sierra, 213 Conn. 422 , 568 A.2d 448 (1990), however, the defendant urges that the specific acts of abuse against K and T differed in nature and duration so as not to fall within the common plan or scheme exception to the inadmissibility of prior misconduct evidence. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Cavell
green
2 sentences2003Because I would conclude that the trial court improperly determined that both the identity and common scheme exception applied, I next would reach the question of the harmfulness of the impropriety. 3 “The standard for determining whether a nonconstitutional error is harmless is [whether] ... it is more probable than not that the erroneous action of the court affected the result.” 4 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cavell, 235 Conn. 711, 721-22 , 670 A.2d 261 (1996). 2003Because I would conclude that the trial court improperly determined that both the identity and common scheme exception applied, I next would reach the question of the harmfulness of the impropriety. 3 “The standard for determining whether a nonconstitutional error is harmless is [whether] ... it is more probable than not that the erroneous action of the court affected the result.” 4 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cavell, 235 Conn. 711, 721-22 , 670 A.2d 261 (1996). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.
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.