fact-based inquiry in Connecticut

2005Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determine whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ford, 230 Conn. 686, 692 , 646 A.2d 147 (1994).

2005Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determine whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ford, 230 Conn. 686, 692 , 646 A.2d 147 (1994).

2024Normally, this is a fact based claim to be determined by the trial court, subject only to review for clear error.’’ (Citations omit- ted.) State v. Ouellette, supra, 295 Conn. 186–87. ‘‘[T]he burden is on the defendant to prove the existence of undisclosed exculpatory evidence.’’ State v. Floyd, 253 Conn. 700, 737 , 756 A.2d 799 (2000).

2024Normally, this is a fact based claim to be determined by the trial court, subject only to review for clear error.’’ (Citations omit- ted.) State v. Ouellette, supra, 295 Conn. 186–87. ‘‘[T]he burden is on the defendant to prove the existence of undisclosed exculpatory evidence.’’ State v. Floyd, 253 Conn. 700, 737 , 756 A.2d 799 (2000).

2022Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bradley, 60 Conn. App. 534, 540 , 760 A.2d 520 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 921 , 763 A.2d 1042 (2000). ‘‘The trier [of fact] may draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts estab- lished by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fagan, supra, 280 Conn. 80 .

2019Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bradley , 60 Conn. App. 534 , 540, 760 A.2d 520 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 921 , 763 A.2d 1042 (2000).

2022Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bradley, 60 Conn. App. 534, 540 , 760 A.2d 520 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 921 , 763 A.2d 1042 (2000). ‘‘The trier [of fact] may draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts estab- lished by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fagan, supra, 280 Conn. 80 .

2019Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bradley , 60 Conn. App. 534 , 540, 760 A.2d 520 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 921 , 763 A.2d 1042 (2000).

2022Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bradley, 60 Conn. App. 534, 540 , 760 A.2d 520 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 921 , 763 A.2d 1042 (2000). ‘‘The trier [of fact] may draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts estab- lished by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fagan, supra, 280 Conn. 80 .

2022Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bradley, 60 Conn. App. 534, 540 , 760 A.2d 520 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 921 , 763 A.2d 1042 (2000). ‘‘The trier [of fact] may draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts estab- lished by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fagan, supra, 280 Conn. 80 .

2025Normally, this is a fact based claim to be determined by the trial court, subject only to review for clear error. . . . [T]he bur- den is on the defendant to prove the existence of undis- closed exculpatory evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Moore v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. App. 487 , 497–99, 321 A.3d 470 , cert. granted, 350 Conn. 924 , 326 A.3d 247 (2024); see also State v. Ouellette, 295 Conn. 173 , 185–87, 989 A.2d 1048 (2010). ‘‘Whether the petitioner was deprived of his due pro- cess rights due to a Brady violation is a question of law, to

2025Normally, this is a fact based claim to be determined by the trial court, subject only to review for clear error. . . . [T]he bur- den is on the defendant to prove the existence of undis- closed exculpatory evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Moore v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. App. 487 , 497–99, 321 A.3d 470 , cert. granted, 350 Conn. 924 , 326 A.3d 247 (2024); see also State v. Ouellette, 295 Conn. 173 , 185–87, 989 A.2d 1048 (2010). ‘‘Whether the petitioner was deprived of his due pro- cess rights due to a Brady violation is a question of law, to

2025Normally, this is a fact based claim to be determined by the trial court, subject only to review for clear error. . . . [T]he bur- den is on the defendant to prove the existence of undis- closed exculpatory evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Moore v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. App. 487 , 497–99, 321 A.3d 470 , cert. granted, 350 Conn. 924 , 326 A.3d 247 (2024); see also State v. Ouellette, 295 Conn. 173 , 185–87, 989 A.2d 1048 (2010). ‘‘Whether the petitioner was deprived of his due pro- cess rights due to a Brady violation is a question of law, to

2025Normally, this is a fact based claim to be determined by the trial court, subject only to review for clear error. . . . [T]he bur- den is on the defendant to prove the existence of undis- closed exculpatory evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Moore v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. App. 487 , 497–99, 321 A.3d 470 , cert. granted, 350 Conn. 924 , 326 A.3d 247 (2024); see also State v. Ouellette, 295 Conn. 173 , 185–87, 989 A.2d 1048 (2010). ‘‘Whether the petitioner was deprived of his due pro- cess rights due to a Brady violation is a question of law, to

2025Normally, this is a fact based claim to be determined by the trial court, subject only to review for clear error. . . . [T]he bur- den is on the defendant to prove the existence of undis- closed exculpatory evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Moore v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. App. 487 , 497–99, 321 A.3d 470 , cert. granted, 350 Conn. 924 , 326 A.3d 247 (2024); see also State v. Ouellette, 295 Conn. 173 , 185–87, 989 A.2d 1048 (2010). ‘‘Whether the petitioner was deprived of his due pro- cess rights due to a Brady violation is a question of law, to

2025Normally, this is a fact based claim to be determined by the trial court, subject only to review for clear error. . . . [T]he bur- den is on the defendant to prove the existence of undis- closed exculpatory evidence.’’ (Citations omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Moore v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. App. 487 , 497–99, 321 A.3d 470 , cert. granted, 350 Conn. 924 , 326 A.3d 247 (2024); see also State v. Ouellette, 295 Conn. 173 , 185–87, 989 A.2d 1048 (2010). ‘‘Whether the petitioner was deprived of his due pro- cess rights due to a Brady violation is a question of law, to

2020Section 53a-212 (a) states that ‘‘[a] person is guilty of stealing a firearm when, with intent to deprive another person of such other person’s firearm or to appropriate the firearm to such person or a third party, such person wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds a firearm, as defined in subdivision (19) of section 53a-3.’’ A ‘‘[f]ire- arm’’ is defined as ‘‘any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) General Stat- utes § 53a-3 (19). ‘‘Operability of the [firear

2020Section 53a-212 (a) states that ‘‘[a] person is guilty of stealing a firearm when, with intent to deprive another person of such other person’s firearm or to appropriate the firearm to such person or a third party, such person wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds a firearm, as defined in subdivision (19) of section 53a-3.’’ A ‘‘[f]ire- arm’’ is defined as ‘‘any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) General Stat- utes § 53a-3 (19). ‘‘Operability of the [firear

2020Section 53a-212 (a) states that ‘‘[a] person is guilty of stealing a firearm when, with intent to deprive another person of such other person’s firearm or to appropriate the firearm to such person or a third party, such person wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds a firearm, as defined in subdivision (19) of section 53a-3.’’ A ‘‘[f]ire- arm’’ is defined as ‘‘any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) General Stat- utes § 53a-3 (19). ‘‘Operability of the [firear

2020Section 53a-212 (a) states that ‘‘[a] person is guilty of stealing a firearm when, with intent to deprive another person of such other person’s firearm or to appropriate the firearm to such person or a third party, such person wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds a firearm, as defined in subdivision (19) of section 53a-3.’’ A ‘‘[f]ire- arm’’ is defined as ‘‘any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) General Stat- utes § 53a-3 (19). ‘‘Operability of the [firear

2020Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to a determination of whether the jury’s inferences drawn were so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bradley, 39 Conn. App. 82 , 90–91, 663 A.2d 1100 (1995), cert. denied, 236 Conn. 901 , 670 A.2d 322 (1996).

2020Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to a determination of whether the jury’s inferences drawn were so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bradley, 39 Conn. App. 82 , 90–91, 663 A.2d 1100 (1995), cert. denied, 236 Conn. 901 , 670 A.2d 322 (1996).

2020Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to a determination of whether the jury’s inferences drawn were so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bradley, 39 Conn. App. 82 , 90–91, 663 A.2d 1100 (1995), cert. denied, 236 Conn. 901 , 670 A.2d 322 (1996).

2020Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to a determination of whether the jury’s inferences drawn were so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bradley, 39 Conn. App. 82 , 90–91, 663 A.2d 1100 (1995), cert. denied, 236 Conn. 901 , 670 A.2d 322 (1996).

2020Section 53a-212 (a) states that ‘‘[a] person is guilty of stealing a firearm when, with intent to deprive another person of such other person’s firearm or to appropriate the firearm to such person or a third party, such person wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds a firearm, as defined in subdivision (19) of section 53a-3.’’ A ‘‘[f]ire- arm’’ is defined as ‘‘any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) General Stat- utes § 53a-3 (19). ‘‘Operability of the [firear

2020Section 53a-212 (a) states that ‘‘[a] person is guilty of stealing a firearm when, with intent to deprive another person of such other person’s firearm or to appropriate the firearm to such person or a third party, such person wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds a firearm, as defined in subdivision (19) of section 53a-3.’’ A ‘‘[f]ire- arm’’ is defined as ‘‘any sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver or other weapon, whether loaded or unloaded from which a shot may be discharged . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) General Stat- utes § 53a-3 (19). ‘‘Operability of the [firear

2020Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to a determination of whether the jury’s inferences drawn were so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bradley, 39 Conn. App. 82 , 90–91, 663 A.2d 1100 (1995), cert. denied, 236 Conn. 901 , 670 A.2d 322 (1996).

2020Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to a determination of whether the jury’s inferences drawn were so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bradley, 39 Conn. App. 82 , 90–91, 663 A.2d 1100 (1995), cert. denied, 236 Conn. 901 , 670 A.2d 322 (1996).

2014This court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the [trier of fact] if there is sufficient evidence to support [its] verdict.” 2 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sadowski, 146 Conn. App. 693, 695-96 , 79 A.3d 136 (2013), cert. denied, 311 Conn. 903 , 83 A.3d 604 (2014).

2014This court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the [trier of fact] if there is sufficient evidence to support [its] verdict.” 2 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sadowski, 146 Conn. App. 693, 695-96 , 79 A.3d 136 (2013), cert. denied, 311 Conn. 903 , 83 A.3d 604 (2014).

2010State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 135 , 646 A.2d 169 (1994); see also State v. Morgan, 274 Conn. 790, 801 , 877 A.2d 739 (2005) ([o]ur review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the [trier of fact] are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable . . .).

2010State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115, 135 , 646 A.2d 169 (1994); see also State v. Morgan, 274 Conn. 790, 801 , 877 A.2d 739 (2005) ([o]ur review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the [trier of fact] are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable . . .).

2010Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 110 Conn. App. 70, 75 , 954 A.2d 202 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 954 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008).

2009Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 110 Conn. App. 70, 75 , 954 A.2d 202 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 954 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008). “[W]e do not sit as a [seventh] juror who may cast a vote against the verdict based upon our feeling that some doubt of guilt is shown by the cold printed record. . . .

2010Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 110 Conn. App. 70, 75 , 954 A.2d 202 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 954 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008).

2009Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 110 Conn. App. 70, 75 , 954 A.2d 202 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 954 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008). “[W]e do not sit as a [seventh] juror who may cast a vote against the verdict based upon our feeling that some doubt of guilt is shown by the cold printed record. . . .

2010Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 110 Conn. App. 70, 75 , 954 A.2d 202 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 954 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008).

2010Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 110 Conn. App. 70, 75 , 954 A.2d 202 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 954 , 961 A.2d 422 (2008).

2001Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Boykin, 27 Conn. App. 558, 563-64 , 609 A.2d 242 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 905 , 610 A.2d 179 (1992).

2001Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Boykin, 27 Conn. App. 558, 563-64 , 609 A.2d 242 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 905 , 610 A.2d 179 (1992).

2001Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ingram, 43 Conn. App. 801, 809 , 687 A.2d 1279 (1996), cert. denied, 240 Conn. 908 , 689 A.2d 472 (1997), quoting State v. Ford, 230 Conn. 686, 692 , 646 A.2d 147 (1994). “[T]he inquiry into whether the record evidence would support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence . . . established guilt beyond a reas

2001Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unrea sonable as to be unjustifiable.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ingram, 43 Conn. App. 801, 809 , 687 A.2d 1279 (1996), cert. denied, 240 Conn. 908 , 689 A.2d 472 (1997), quoting State v. Ford, 230 Conn. 686, 692 , 646 A.2d 147 (1994). “[T]he inquiiy into whether the record evidence would support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence . . . established guilt beyond a rea

2001Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unreasonable as to be unjustifiable.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ingram, 43 Conn. App. 801, 809 , 687 A.2d 1279 (1996), cert. denied, 240 Conn. 908 , 689 A.2d 472 (1997), quoting State v. Ford, 230 Conn. 686, 692 , 646 A.2d 147 (1994). “[T]he inquiry into whether the record evidence would support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence . . . established guilt beyond a reas

2001Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unrea sonable as to be unjustifiable.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ingram, 43 Conn. App. 801, 809 , 687 A.2d 1279 (1996), cert. denied, 240 Conn. 908 , 689 A.2d 472 (1997), quoting State v. Ford, 230 Conn. 686, 692 , 646 A.2d 147 (1994). “[T]he inquiiy into whether the record evidence would support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence . . . established guilt beyond a rea

2001Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Boykin, 27 Conn. App. 558, 563-64 , 609 A.2d 242 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 905 , 610 A.2d 179 (1992).

2001Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Boykin, 27 Conn. App. 558, 563-64 , 609 A.2d 242 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 905 , 610 A.2d 179 (1992).

2001Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unrea sonable as to be unjustifiable.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ingram, 43 Conn. App. 801, 809 , 687 A.2d 1279 (1996), cert. denied, 240 Conn. 908 , 689 A.2d 472 (1997), quoting State v. Ford, 230 Conn. 686, 692 , 646 A.2d 147 (1994). “[T]he inquiiy into whether the record evidence would support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence . . . established guilt beyond a rea

2001Our review is a fact based inquiry limited to determining whether the inferences drawn by the jury are so unrea sonable as to be unjustifiable.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ingram, 43 Conn. App. 801, 809 , 687 A.2d 1279 (1996), cert. denied, 240 Conn. 908 , 689 A.2d 472 (1997), quoting State v. Ford, 230 Conn. 686, 692 , 646 A.2d 147 (1994). “[T]he inquiiy into whether the record evidence would support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not require a court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence . . . established guilt beyond a rea

2026Normally, this is a fact based claim to be determined by the trial court, subject only to review for clear error. . . . [T]he burden is on the defendant to prove the existence of undisclosed exculpatory evidence. . . . testified affirmatively that he had relayed the plea offer of twenty years of imprisonment, as extended by the state to the petitioner. 15 Although the habeas court did not address the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel test, it is axiomatic that “a court may resolve ineffective assistance of counsel claims on either the per- formance prong or the prejudice

2025Normally, this is a fact based claim to be determined by the trial court, subject only to review for clear error. . . . [T]he burden is on the defendant to prove the existence of undisclosed exculpatory evidence.’’ (Citation omitted; footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 228 Conn. App. 309, 314 , 324 A.3d 144 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 927 , 326 A.3d 250 (2024); see also State v. Smith, 313 Conn. 325 , 348–49, 96 A.3d 1238 (2014) (same).

2025The rule is that the jury’s function is to draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lewis, 303 Conn. 760 , 767–68, 36 A.3d 670 (2012).

2025The rule is that the jury’s function is to draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lewis, 303 Conn. 760 , 767–68, 36 A.3d 670 (2012).

2025Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kyle A., 212 Conn. App. 239 , 245–46, 274 A.3d 896 (2022), aff’d, 348 Conn. 437 , 307 A.3d 249 (2024). ‘‘[W]e give great deference to the findings of the trial court because of its function to weigh and interpret the evidence before it and to pass upon the credibility of witnesses. . . .