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.
8 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Payne
green
2 sentences2026State v. Rivera, 260 Conn. 486, 490 , 798 A.2d 958 (2002); see General Statutes § 54-57; Practice Book § 41-19. [I]n State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115 , 159, 51 A.3d 1048 (2012), and State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 544-50, 34 A.3d 370 (2012) . . . we rejected the notion of a blanket presumption in favor of joinder and clarified that, when charges are brought in separate informations, and the state seeks to join those informations for trial, the state bears the burden of proving that the defendant will not be substantially prejudiced by joinder pursuant to Practice Book § 41-19. . . . 2026State v. Rivera, 260 Conn. 486, 490 , 798 A.2d 958 (2002); see General Statutes § 54-57; Practice Book § 41-19. [I]n State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115 , 159, 51 A.3d 1048 (2012), and State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 544-50, 34 A.3d 370 (2012) . . . we rejected the notion of a blanket presumption in favor of joinder and clarified that, when charges are brought in separate informations, and the state seeks to join those informations for trial, the state bears the burden of proving that the defendant will not be substantially prejudiced by joinder pursuant to Practice Book § 41-19. . . . | 6 | 2016–2026 |
State v. Jennings
green
2 sentences2022We begin with a review of the governing legal principles. ‘‘[The] General Statutes and rules of practice expressly authorize a trial court to order a defendant to be tried jointly on charges arising from separate cases.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rivera, 260 Conn. 486, 490 , 798 A.2d 958 (2002); see General Statutes § 54-57; Practice Book § 41-19. ‘‘[I]n State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115 , 159, 51 A.3d 1048 (2012), and State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 544-50, 34 A.3d 370 (2012) . . . we rejected the notion of a blanket presumption in favor of joinder and clarified that, when c 2022We begin with a review of the governing legal principles. ‘‘[The] General Statutes and rules of practice expressly authorize a trial court to order a defendant to be tried jointly on charges arising from separate cases.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rivera, 260 Conn. 486, 490 , 798 A.2d 958 (2002); see General Statutes § 54-57; Practice Book § 41-19. ‘‘[I]n State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115 , 159, 51 A.3d 1048 (2012), and State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 544-50, 34 A.3d 370 (2012) . . . we rejected the notion of a blanket presumption in favor of joinder and clarified that, when c | 4 | 2022–2026 |
State v. Boscarino
green
2 sentences2023The state may satisfy this burden by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, either that the evidence in the cases is cross admissible or that the defendant will not be unfairly prejudiced pursuant to the factors set forth in State v. Boscarino, [ 204 Conn. 714 , 722-24, 529 A.2d 1260 (1987)].4 Although the state bears the burden of proof in the trial court, [i]t is the defendant’s burden on appeal to show that joinder was improper by proving substantial prejudice that could not be cured by the trial court’s instructions to the jury . . . . 2023The state may satisfy this burden by proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, either that the evidence in the cases is cross admissible or that the defendant will not be unfairly prejudiced pursuant to the factors set forth in State v. Boscarino, [ 204 Conn. 714 , 722-24, 529 A.2d 1260 (1987)].4 Although the state bears the burden of proof in the trial court, [i]t is the defendant’s burden on appeal to show that joinder was improper by proving substantial prejudice that could not be cured by the trial court’s instructions to the jury . . . . | 4 | 2016–2023 |
State v. Rivera
green
2 sentences2026State v. Rivera, 260 Conn. 486, 490 , 798 A.2d 958 (2002); see General Statutes § 54-57; Practice Book § 41-19. [I]n State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115 , 159, 51 A.3d 1048 (2012), and State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 544-50, 34 A.3d 370 (2012) . . . we rejected the notion of a blanket presumption in favor of joinder and clarified that, when charges are brought in separate informations, and the state seeks to join those informations for trial, the state bears the burden of proving that the defendant will not be substantially prejudiced by joinder pursuant to Practice Book § 41-19. . . . 2026State v. Rivera, 260 Conn. 486, 490 , 798 A.2d 958 (2002); see General Statutes § 54-57; Practice Book § 41-19. [I]n State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115 , 159, 51 A.3d 1048 (2012), and State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 , 544-50, 34 A.3d 370 (2012) . . . we rejected the notion of a blanket presumption in favor of joinder and clarified that, when charges are brought in separate informations, and the state seeks to join those informations for trial, the state bears the burden of proving that the defendant will not be substantially prejudiced by joinder pursuant to Practice Book § 41-19. . . . | 3 | 2022–2026 |
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.