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.
10 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2026 5 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. Jose R.green2 sentences2026The constitutional analysis and the harm analysis in such cases are one and the same.” Id., 563-64; see State v. Jose R., 338 Conn. 375 , 386-87, 258 A.3d 50 (2021) (reaffirming Payne and explaining that, “when a prosecutor makes improper remarks that violate a defendant’s specifically enumerated constitutional rights, the constitutional analysis and the harm analysis are separate and distinct inquiries”); see also State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 832 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005) (“[w]here a claim is of constitutional magnitude, ‘the state has the burden of proving the constitutional error was harm 2026The constitutional analysis and the harm analysis in such cases are one and the same.” Id., 563-64; see State v. Jose R., 338 Conn. 375 , 386-87, 258 A.3d 50 (2021) (reaffirming Payne and explaining that, “when a prosecutor makes improper remarks that violate a defendant’s specifically enumerated constitutional rights, the constitutional analysis and the harm analysis are separate and distinct inquiries”); see also State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 832 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005) (“[w]here a claim is of constitutional magnitude, ‘the state has the burden of proving the constitutional error was harm | 2 | 2 |
State v. Paynegreen2 sentences2019"This allocation of the burden of proof is appropriate because, when a defendant raises a general due process claim, there can be no constitutional violation in the absence of harm to the defendant caused by denial of his right to a fair trial." Id., at 563-64 , 34 A.3d 370 . 2019"This allocation of the burden of proof is appropriate because, when a defendant raises a general due process claim, there can be no constitutional violation in the absence of harm to the defendant caused by denial of his right to a fair trial." Id., at 563-64 , 34 A.3d 370 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. A. M.green2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. A. M., 324 Conn. 190, 200 , 152 A.3d 49 (2016) (‘‘[b]ecause the defendant’s claim . . . implicated his fifth amendment right to remain silent, we apply the harmless error standard . . . rather than the general due process standard from [State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987)]’’); see also State v. A. M., supra, 199 (‘‘If the defendant raises [a specifically enumerated constitutional right], the defendant initially has the burden to establish that a constitutional right was violated. . . . 2025See, e.g., State v. A. M., 324 Conn. 190, 200 , 152 A.3d 49 (2016) (‘‘[b]ecause the defendant’s claim . . . implicated his fifth amendment right to remain silent, we apply the harmless error standard . . . rather than the general due process standard from [State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987)]’’); see also State v. A. M., supra, 199 (‘‘If the defendant raises [a specifically enumerated constitutional right], the defendant initially has the burden to establish that a constitutional right was violated. . . . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Carpentergreen2 sentences2026The constitutional analysis and the harm analysis in such cases are one and the same.” Id., 563-64; see State v. Jose R., 338 Conn. 375 , 386-87, 258 A.3d 50 (2021) (reaffirming Payne and explaining that, “when a prosecutor makes improper remarks that violate a defendant’s specifically enumerated constitutional rights, the constitutional analysis and the harm analysis are separate and distinct inquiries”); see also State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 832 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005) (“[w]here a claim is of constitutional magnitude, ‘the state has the burden of proving the constitutional error was harm 2026The constitutional analysis and the harm analysis in such cases are one and the same.” Id., 563-64; see State v. Jose R., 338 Conn. 375 , 386-87, 258 A.3d 50 (2021) (reaffirming Payne and explaining that, “when a prosecutor makes improper remarks that violate a defendant’s specifically enumerated constitutional rights, the constitutional analysis and the harm analysis are separate and distinct inquiries”); see also State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 832 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005) (“[w]here a claim is of constitutional magnitude, ‘the state has the burden of proving the constitutional error was harm | 1 | 1 |
Ellis v. Emerygreen2 sentences2026The constitutional analysis and the harm analysis in such cases are one and the same.” Id., 563-64; see State v. Jose R., 338 Conn. 375 , 386-87, 258 A.3d 50 (2021) (reaffirming Payne and explaining that, “when a prosecutor makes improper remarks that violate a defendant’s specifically enumerated constitutional rights, the constitutional analysis and the harm analysis are separate and distinct inquiries”); see also State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 832 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005) (“[w]here a claim is of constitutional magnitude, ‘the state has the burden of proving the constitutional error was harm 2026The constitutional analysis and the harm analysis in such cases are one and the same.” Id., 563-64; see State v. Jose R., 338 Conn. 375 , 386-87, 258 A.3d 50 (2021) (reaffirming Payne and explaining that, “when a prosecutor makes improper remarks that violate a defendant’s specifically enumerated constitutional rights, the constitutional analysis and the harm analysis are separate and distinct inquiries”); see also State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 832 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005) (“[w]here a claim is of constitutional magnitude, ‘the state has the burden of proving the constitutional error was harm | 1 | 1 |
State v. Labrecgreen2 sentences2021The constitutional analysis and the harm analysis in such cases are one and the same.’’ Id., 563-64; see also State v. LaBrec, 270 Conn. 548 , 562 n.1, 854 A.2d 1 (2004) (Borden, J., concurring) (recognizing that, ‘‘if the [constitutional] error was harmless, then the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial,’’ and, ‘‘if the defendant was deprived of a fair trial, then the error cannot be considered harmless’’). 2021The constitutional analysis and the harm analysis in such cases are one and the same.’’ Id., 563-64; see also State v. LaBrec, 270 Conn. 548 , 562 n.1, 854 A.2d 1 (2004) (Borden, J., concurring) (recognizing that, ‘‘if the [constitutional] error was harmless, then the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial,’’ and, ‘‘if the defendant was deprived of a fair trial, then the error cannot be considered harmless’’). | 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. Williams
green
2 sentences2025See, e.g., State v. A. M., 324 Conn. 190, 200 , 152 A.3d 49 (2016) (‘‘[b]ecause the defendant’s claim . . . implicated his fifth amendment right to remain silent, we apply the harmless error standard . . . rather than the general due process standard from [State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987)]’’); see also State v. A. M., supra, 199 (‘‘If the defendant raises [a specifically enumerated constitutional right], the defendant initially has the burden to establish that a constitutional right was violated. . . . 2025See, e.g., State v. A. M., 324 Conn. 190, 200 , 152 A.3d 49 (2016) (‘‘[b]ecause the defendant’s claim . . . implicated his fifth amendment right to remain silent, we apply the harmless error standard . . . rather than the general due process standard from [State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 , 529 A.2d 653 (1987)]’’); see also State v. A. M., supra, 199 (‘‘If the defendant raises [a specifically enumerated constitutional right], the defendant initially has the burden to establish that a constitutional right was violated. . . . | 3 | 2012–2025 |
State v. Ruffin
green
2 sentences2016We acknowledge that in State v. Ruffin , 316 Conn. 20 , 27-29, 110 A.3d 1225 (2015), a case decided after Payne , we used the general due process standard when considering a prosecutorial misconduct claim that implicated the fifth amendment right to remain silent. 2016We acknowledge that in State v. Ruffin , 316 Conn. 20 , 27-29, 110 A.3d 1225 (2015), a case decided after Payne , we used the general due process standard when considering a prosecutorial misconduct claim that implicated the fifth amendment right to remain silent. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Fauci
green
2 sentences2012Second, if an impropriety exists, [a reviewing court] then examine [s] whether it deprived the defendant of his due process right to a fair trial.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23, 32 , 917 A.2d 978 (2007). “[T]he burden is on the defendant to show . . . that, considered in light of the whole trial, the improprieties were so egregious that they amounted to a denial of due process.” State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 563 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012). “[W]hen a defendant raises a general due process claim, there can be no constitutional violation in the absence of harm to the defendant cau 2012Second, if an impropriety exists, [a reviewing court] then examine [s] whether it deprived the defendant of his due process right to a fair trial.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23, 32 , 917 A.2d 978 (2007). “[T]he burden is on the defendant to show . . . that, considered in light of the whole trial, the improprieties were so egregious that they amounted to a denial of due process.” State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538, 563 , 34 A.3d 370 (2012). “[W]hen a defendant raises a general due process claim, there can be no constitutional violation in the absence of harm to the defendant cau | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.