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.
383 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1990–2026 51 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. Goldinggreen2 sentences2026I A Failure to Adhere to Court Rulings The defendant first claims that the prosecutor acted improperly by ignoring the court’s instructions and 1 “[U]nder settled law, a defendant who fails to preserve claims of prosecutorial [impropriety] need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding test.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Antwon B., 236 Conn. App. 428, 457 n.18, 348 A.3d 814 (2025), cert. denied, 354 Conn. 910, 349 A 2026I A Failure to Adhere to Court Rulings The defendant first claims that the prosecutor acted improperly by ignoring the court’s instructions and 1 “[U]nder settled law, a defendant who fails to preserve claims of prosecutorial [impropriety] need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding test.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Antwon B., 236 Conn. App. 428, 457 n.18, 348 A.3d 814 (2025), cert. denied, 354 Conn. 910, 349 A | 17 | 106 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2020There being no practical significance, therefore, for engaging in a Golding analysis of an insufficiency of the evidence claim, we will review the defendant’s challenge to his conviction . . . as we do any properly preserved claim.’ State v. Adams, 225 Conn. 270 , 276 n.3, 623 A.2d 42 (1993).’’). 2020There being no practical significance, therefore, for engaging in a Golding analysis of an insufficiency of the evidence claim, we will review the defendant’s challenge to his conviction . . . as we do any properly preserved claim.’ State v. Adams, 225 Conn. 270 , 276 n.3, 623 A.2d 42 (1993).’’). | 4 | 12 |
State v. Paynegreen2 sentences2024Once the defendant has done so, ‘‘the burden is then on the state to prove that the impropriety was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ Id. ‘‘[A] defendant who fails to preserve claims of prosecutorial misconduct need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of [Golding], and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four- pronged Golding test.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 560 . 2024Once the defendant has done so, ‘‘the burden is then on the state to prove that the impropriety was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ Id. ‘‘[A] defendant who fails to preserve claims of prosecutorial misconduct need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of [Golding], and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four- pronged Golding test.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 560 . | 3 | 11 |
State v. Fabricatoregreen2 sentences2012In reviewing unpreserved claims under Golding, we have held that “[a] defendant in a criminal prosecution may waive one or more of his or her fundamental rights.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fabricatore, 281 Conn. 469, 478 , 915 A.2d 872 (2007). 15 “[A] constitutional claim that has been waived does not *368 satisfy the third prong of the Golding test because, in such circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that injustice [has been] done to either party ... or that the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial . . . .” 2012In reviewing unpreserved claims under Golding, we have held that “[a] defendant in a criminal prosecution may waive one or more of his or her fundamental rights.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fabricatore, 281 Conn. 469, 478 , 915 A.2d 872 (2007). 15 “[A] constitutional claim that has been waived does not *368 satisfy the third prong of the Golding test because, in such circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that injustice [has been] done to either party ... or that the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial . . . .” | 3 | 11 |
State v. Kitchensgreen2 sentences2026“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos G., 354 Conn. 21, 26 , 349 A.3d 1 (2026). 4 The state does not argue that the defendant has implicitly waived any challenge to the trial court’s instructions pursuant to State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011). 2026“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos G., 354 Conn. 21, 26 , 349 A.3d 1 (2026). 4 The state does not argue that the defendant has implicitly waived any challenge to the trial court’s instructions pursuant to State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011). | 2 | 15 |
State v. Stevensongreen2 sentences2018"In State v. Stevenson, [ 269 Conn. 563 , 572-73, 849 A.2d 626 (2004) ], our Supreme Court held that, in cases of claimed prosecutorial impropriety, it is unnecessary for the defendant to seek to prevail under the specific requirements of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding test.... 2018"In State v. Stevenson, [ 269 Conn. 563 , 572-73, 849 A.2d 626 (2004) ], our Supreme Court held that, in cases of claimed prosecutorial impropriety, it is unnecessary for the defendant to seek to prevail under the specific requirements of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding test.... | 2 | 14 |
State v. Hamptongreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435 , 448-49, 988 A.2d 167 (2009) (‘‘[a] constitutional claim that has been waived does not satisfy the third prong of the Golding test because, in such circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that injustice [has been] done to either party . . . or that the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial’’ (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted)). 6 This court has made clear that the Connecticut Code of Evidence functions analogously: ‘‘Much like the Federal Rules of Evidence, under our Code 2023See, e.g., State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435 , 448-49, 988 A.2d 167 (2009) (‘‘[a] constitutional claim that has been waived does not satisfy the third prong of the Golding test because, in such circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that injustice [has been] done to either party . . . or that the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial’’ (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted)). 6 This court has made clear that the Connecticut Code of Evidence functions analogously: ‘‘Much like the Federal Rules of Evidence, under our Code | 2 | 8 |
State v. Evansgreen2 sentences2012Both Oliveras and Uretek, Inc., discussed the reviewability of an unpre-served claim asserting a lack of proof of corpus delicti under the pre-Golding standard set forth in State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973). 2012Both Oliveras and Uretek, Inc., discussed the reviewability of an unpre-served claim asserting a lack of proof of corpus delicti under the pre-Golding standard set forth in State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Cohensgreen2 sentences2009“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001). 2009“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Cohensgreen2 sentences2009“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001). 2009“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001). | 2 | 5 |
| State v. McDanielgreen | 2 | 4 |
| State v. McDanielgreen | 2 | 4 |
| In re Vada V.green | 2 | 3 |
| Mozell v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Abrahamgreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Elsongreen | 2 | 3 |
| Perricone v. Perriconegreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Myersgreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Holnessgreen2 sentences2025The prosecutor then presented Rivera with the photographs of the defendant that Rivera had signed during Rivera’s second 352 Conn. 183 JUNE, 2025 21 State v. Hinton ‘‘A waived claim, as opposed to an unpreserved claim, does not satisfy the third prong of the Golding test because, in such circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that injustice [has been] done to either party . . . or that the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Culbreath, 340 Conn. 167, 179 , 263 A.3d 350 (2021). ‘‘ 2025The prosecutor then presented Rivera with the photographs of the defendant that Rivera had signed during Rivera’s second 352 Conn. 183 JUNE, 2025 21 State v. Hinton ‘‘A waived claim, as opposed to an unpreserved claim, does not satisfy the third prong of the Golding test because, in such circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that injustice [has been] done to either party . . . or that the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Culbreath, 340 Conn. 167, 179 , 263 A.3d 350 (2021). ‘‘ | 1 | 11 |
State v. Warholicgreen2 sentences2021Because these claims require the application of distinct legal principles, we address them separately in this opinion. 10 In light of the Appellate Court’s express application of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), to the claims raised by the defendant; see State v. Gonzalez, supra, 188 Conn. App. 318-19; we take this opportunity to reiterate that ‘‘a defendant who fails to preserve claims of prosecutorial [impropriety] need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of [Golding] and, 2021Because these claims require the application of distinct legal principles, we address them separately in this opinion. 10 In light of the Appellate Court’s express application of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), to the claims raised by the defendant; see State v. Gonzalez, supra, 188 Conn. App. 318-19; we take this opportunity to reiterate that ‘‘a defendant who fails to preserve claims of prosecutorial [impropriety] need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of [Golding] and, | 1 | 6 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2008See State v. Williams, 60 Conn. App. 575, 577-78 , 760 A.2d 948 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 922 , 763 A.2d 1043 (2000). 6 The Falcon court, however, did not first invoke its supervisory powers to reach the constitutional claims under the Golding analysis. 2008See State v. Williams, 60 Conn. App. 575, 577-78 , 760 A.2d 948 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 922 , 763 A.2d 1043 (2000). 6 The Falcon court, however, did not first invoke its supervisory powers to reach the constitutional claims under the Golding analysis. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2008See State v. Williams, 60 Conn. App. 575, 577-78 , 760 A.2d 948 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 922 , 763 A.2d 1043 (2000). 6 The Falcon court, however, did not first invoke its supervisory powers to reach the constitutional claims under the Golding analysis. 2008See State v. Williams, 60 Conn. App. 575, 577-78 , 760 A.2d 948 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 922 , 763 A.2d 1043 (2000). 6 The Falcon court, however, did not first invoke its supervisory powers to reach the constitutional claims under the Golding analysis. | 1 | 4 |
| State v. Hintongreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. A. M.green | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Hudsongreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Hudsongreen | 1 | 3 |
| Ghant v. Commissionergreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Dashgreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. DARRYL W.green | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Fraziergreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Ciullogreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Fraziergreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Estradagreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Estradagreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2018Application of the ... factors [in State v. Williams , supra, 204 Conn. at 540 , 529 A.2d 653 ] provides for such an analysis, and the specific Golding test, therefore, is superfluous." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Campbell , 141 Conn. App. 55 , 60-61 n.3, 60 A.3d 967 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 933 , 64 A.3d 331 (2013). 2018Application of the ... factors [in State v. Williams , supra, 204 Conn. at 540 , 529 A.2d 653 ] provides for such an analysis, and the specific Golding test, therefore, is superfluous." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Campbell , 141 Conn. App. 55 , 60-61 n.3, 60 A.3d 967 , cert. denied, 308 Conn. 933 , 64 A.3d 331 (2013). | 42 | 2004–2021 |
TLOA of CT, LLC v. Taipe
green
2 sentences2025The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Gabriella M., 221 Conn. App. 827 , 836, 303 A.3d 319 , cert. denied, 348 Conn. 925 , 304 A.3d 443 (2023). 2025The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Gabriella M., 221 Conn. App. 827 , 836, 303 A.3d 319 , cert. denied, 348 Conn. 925 , 304 A.3d 443 (2023). | 7 | 2024–2025 |
State v. Spencer
green
2 sentences2007“In cases of unpreserved claims of prosecutorial misconduct ... it is unnecessary for the defendant to seek to prevail under the specific requirements of [State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989)] and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding test.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Spencer, 275 Conn. 171, 178 , 881 A.2d 209 (2005). 2007“In cases of unpreserved claims of prosecutorial misconduct ... it is unnecessary for the defendant to seek to prevail under the specific requirements of [State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989)] and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding test.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Spencer, 275 Conn. 171, 178 , 881 A.2d 209 (2005). | 7 | 2006–2021 |
State v. Britton
green
2 sentences2019"The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Britton , 283 Conn. 598 , 615, 929 A.2d 312 (2007). 2019"The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Britton , 283 Conn. 598 , 615, 929 A.2d 312 (2007). | 7 | 2017–2019 |
State v. Revels
green
2 sentences2026Accordingly, because there is no practical significance . . . for engaging in a Golding analysis, we review an unpreserved sufficiency of the evidence claim as though it had been preserved.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Revels, 313 Conn. 762 , 777, 99 A.3d 1130 (2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1177 , 135 S. Ct. 1451 , 191 L. Ed. 2d 404 (2015). 2026Accordingly, because there is no practical significance . . . for engaging in a Golding analysis, we review an unpreserved sufficiency of the evidence claim as though it had been preserved.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Revels, 313 Conn. 762 , 777, 99 A.3d 1130 (2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1177 , 135 S. Ct. 1451 , 191 L. Ed. 2d 404 (2015). | 6 | 2015–2026 |
State v. Beltran
green
2 sentences2001“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” State v. Beltran, 246 Conn. 268, 275 , 717 A.2d 168 (1998). 2001“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” State v. Beltran, 246 Conn. 268, 275 , 717 A.2d 168 (1998). | 6 | 1999–2001 |
Revels v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences2026Accordingly, because there is no practical significance . . . for engaging in a Golding analysis, we review an unpreserved sufficiency of the evidence claim as though it had been preserved.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Revels, 313 Conn. 762 , 777, 99 A.3d 1130 (2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1177 , 135 S. Ct. 1451 , 191 L. Ed. 2d 404 (2015). 2026Accordingly, because there is no practical significance . . . for engaging in a Golding analysis, we review an unpreserved sufficiency of the evidence claim as though it had been preserved.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Revels, 313 Conn. 762 , 777, 99 A.3d 1130 (2014), cert. denied, 574 U.S. 1177 , 135 S. Ct. 1451 , 191 L. Ed. 2d 404 (2015). | 5 | 2015–2026 |
State v. Daniels
green
2 sentences2025The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Daniels, 228 Conn. App. 321, 342 , 324 A.3d 820 , cert. denied, 350 exception permits a warrantless search of an automobile whenever the police have probable cause to do so . . . as where the searching officer[s] have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. . . . 2025The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Daniels, 228 Conn. App. 321, 342 , 324 A.3d 820 , cert. denied, 350 exception permits a warrantless search of an automobile whenever the police have probable cause to do so . . . as where the searching officer[s] have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. . . . | 5 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Waz
green
2 sentences2009Our Supreme Court has discussed an appellant’s burden when requesting review under the Golding doctrine. “[Defendants who seek consideration of unpreserved constitutional claims [on appeal] bear the burden of establishing their entitlement to such review under the guidelines enumerated in Golding.” State v. Waz, 240 Conn. 365 , 371 n.11, 692 A.2d 1217 (1997). “[A] defendant may prevail on an unpreserved [constitutional] claim under [review pursuant to Golding] . . . or the plain error doctrine. 2009Our Supreme Court has discussed an appellant’s burden when requesting review under the Golding doctrine. “[Defendants who seek consideration of unpreserved constitutional claims [on appeal] bear the burden of establishing their entitlement to such review under the guidelines enumerated in Golding.” State v. Waz, 240 Conn. 365 , 371 n.11, 692 A.2d 1217 (1997). “[A] defendant may prevail on an unpreserved [constitutional] claim under [review pursuant to Golding] . . . or the plain error doctrine. | 5 | 1999–2010 |
State v. Pinnock
green
2 sentences1999In addressing a Golding claim, this court “remain[s] free to dispose of the claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pinnock, 220 Conn. 765, 778 , 601 A.2d 521 (1992); see also State v. Wideman, 36 Conn. App. 190, 204-205 , 650 A.2d 571 (1994), cert. denied, 232 Conn. 903 , 653 A.2d 192 (1995). 1999In addressing a Golding claim, this court “remain[s] free to dispose of the claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pinnock, 220 Conn. 765, 778 , 601 A.2d 521 (1992); see also State v. Wideman, 36 Conn. App. 190, 204-205 , 650 A.2d 571 (1994), cert. denied, 232 Conn. 903 , 653 A.2d 192 (1995). | 5 | 1999–2001 |
State v. Jerrell R.
green
2 sentences2020In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239-40. ‘‘The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jerrell R., 187 Conn. App. 537, 543 , 202 A.3d 1044 , cert. denied, 331 Conn. 918 , 204 A.3d 1160 (2019). 2020In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239-40. ‘‘The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jerrell R., 187 Conn. App. 537, 543 , 202 A.3d 1044 , cert. denied, 331 Conn. 918 , 204 A.3d 1160 (2019). | 4 | 2019–2020 |
State v. Jerrell R.
green
2 sentences2020In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239-40. ‘‘The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jerrell R., 187 Conn. App. 537, 543 , 202 A.3d 1044 , cert. denied, 331 Conn. 918 , 204 A.3d 1160 (2019). 2020In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant’s claim will fail.’’ (Emphasis in original; footnote omitted.) State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239-40. ‘‘The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, while the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jerrell R., 187 Conn. App. 537, 543 , 202 A.3d 1044 , cert. denied, 331 Conn. 918 , 204 A.3d 1160 (2019). | 4 | 2019–2020 |
State v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2017"The appellate tribunal is free, therefore, to respond to the defendant's claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dixon , supra, at 511, 122 A.3d 542 . 2017"The appellate tribunal is free, therefore, to respond to the defendant's claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dixon , supra, at 511, 122 A.3d 542 . | 4 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Brunetti
green
2 sentences2013State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 672, 583-84 , 916 A.2d 767 (2007); see also State v. Dalzell, 282 Conn. 709, 720 , 924 A.2d 809 (2007) (for any Golding claim, incumbent on defendant to take necessary steps to sustain burden of providing adequate record for appellate review); State v. Brunetti, 279 Conn. 39, 63 , 901 A.2d 1 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1212 , 127 S. Ct. 1328 , 167 L. 2013State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 672, 583-84 , 916 A.2d 767 (2007); see also State v. Dalzell, 282 Conn. 709, 720 , 924 A.2d 809 (2007) (for any Golding claim, incumbent on defendant to take necessary steps to sustain burden of providing adequate record for appellate review); State v. Brunetti, 279 Conn. 39, 63 , 901 A.2d 1 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1212 , 127 S. Ct. 1328 , 167 L. | 4 | 2008–2016 |
State v. Torres
green
2 sentences2011Accordingly, we conclude that no practical reason exists to engage in a Golding analysis of a sufficiency of the evidence claim and, thus, review the challenge as we do any other properly preserved claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *660 State v. Torres, 111 Conn. App. 575, 579 , 960 A.2d 573 (2008), cert, denied, 290 Conn. 907 , 964 A.2d 543 (2009). 2011Accordingly, we conclude that no practical reason exists to engage in a Golding analysis of a sufficiency of the evidence claim and, thus, review the challenge as we do any other properly preserved claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *660 State v. Torres, 111 Conn. App. 575, 579 , 960 A.2d 573 (2008), cert, denied, 290 Conn. 907 , 964 A.2d 543 (2009). | 4 | 2010–2011 |
State v. Torres
green
2 sentences2011Accordingly, we conclude that no practical reason exists to engage in a Golding analysis of a sufficiency of the evidence claim and, thus, review the challenge as we do any other properly preserved claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *660 State v. Torres, 111 Conn. App. 575, 579 , 960 A.2d 573 (2008), cert, denied, 290 Conn. 907 , 964 A.2d 543 (2009). 2011Accordingly, we conclude that no practical reason exists to engage in a Golding analysis of a sufficiency of the evidence claim and, thus, review the challenge as we do any other properly preserved claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) *660 State v. Torres, 111 Conn. App. 575, 579 , 960 A.2d 573 (2008), cert, denied, 290 Conn. 907 , 964 A.2d 543 (2009). | 4 | 2010–2011 |
| State v. Brown green | 4 | 2006–2008 |
| State v. Brown green | 4 | 2006–2008 |
| State v. Andresen green | 4 | 2001–2007 |
| State v. Hafford green | 4 | 2000–2003 |
| State v. Avila green | 4 | 1994–1996 |
| State v. Ortiz green | 3 | 2022–2025 |
| State v. Fauci green | 3 | 2013–2021 |
| Davila v. United States green | 3 | 2015–2018 |
| Brunetti v. Connecticut green | 3 | 2008–2013 |
| State v. Ward green | 3 | 2004–2006 |
| State v. Ward green | 3 | 2004–2006 |
| Hafford v. Connecticut green | 3 | 2001–2003 |
| Escarino-Carrillo v. United States green | 3 | 2001–2003 |
| State v. Solman green | 3 | 2002–2003 |
| State v. Solman green | 3 | 2002–2003 |
| State v. Padua green | 3 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Culbreath green | 2 | 2025–2026 |
| State v. Antwon B. green | 2 | 2025–2026 |
| State v. Lewis green | 2 | 2015–2025 |
| State v. Smith green | 2 | 2013–2022 |
| State v. Turner green | 2 | 2019–2021 |
| State v. Adams green | 2 | 2014–2021 |
| State v. Cyrta neutral | 2 | 2009–2020 |
| State v. Cyrta neutral | 2 | 2009–2020 |
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.