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 1988–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doyle v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2026On appeal, the defendant claims that his rights under the fifth amendment to the United States constitution were violated when (1) a police officer testified as to his postarrest silence in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976), and (2) the trial court addressed the jury in the defendant’s absence. 2026On appeal, the defendant claims that his rights under the fifth amendment to the United States constitution were violated when (1) a police officer testified as to his postarrest silence in violation of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 619, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976), and (2) the trial court addressed the jury in the defendant’s absence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Francisgreen2 sentences2018See *650 State v. Francis , supra, 246 Conn. at 341 -42 , 717 A.2d 696 . 2018See *650 State v. Francis , supra, 246 Conn. at 341 -42 , 717 A.2d 696 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Webbgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389 , 392-93, 680 A.2d 147 (1996). 2016See State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389 , 392-93, 680 A.2d 147 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ramirezgreen2 sentences2010See State v. Ramirez, 292 Conn. 586 , 588 n.2, 973 A.2d 1251 (2009). 2010See State v. Ramirez, 292 Conn. 586 , 588 n.2, 973 A.2d 1251 (2009). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Artierigreen2 sentences1988The defendants assert that they were substantially prejudiced in their trial on the robbery charges by the court’s refusal to sever, because proof of a prior felony conviction was an essential element of the second count of the information charging criminal possession of a pistol in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217, 1 and such evidence would have been inadmissible and highly prejudicial; see, e.g., State v. Artieri, 206 Conn. 81, 88 , 536 A.2d 567 (1988); in the case against the defendants with regard to the robbery charges. 1988The defendants assert that they were substantially prejudiced in their trial on the robbery charges by the court’s refusal to sever, because proof of a prior felony conviction was an essential element of the second count of the information charging criminal possession of a pistol in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217, 1 and such evidence would have been inadmissible and highly prejudicial; see, e.g., State v. Artieri, 206 Conn. 81, 88 , 536 A.2d 567 (1988); in the case against the defendants with regard to the robbery charges. | 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. Kitchens
green
2 sentences2016The defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that he waived his unpreserved jury instruction claim under the rule established in State v. Kitchens , 299 Conn. 447 , 482-83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011). 1 The defendant further contends that the rule in Kitchens should be overturned because it is confusing, unworkable, interferes with an appellate court's discretion to review unpreserved claims and does not serve the interests of justice. 2 We conclude, following a careful review of the record, that the Appellate Court correctly determined that the defendant waived his unpreserved 2016The defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that he waived his unpreserved jury instruction claim under the rule established in State v. Kitchens , 299 Conn. 447 , 482-83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011). 1 The defendant further contends that the rule in Kitchens should be overturned because it is confusing, unworkable, interferes with an appellate court's discretion to review unpreserved claims and does not serve the interests of justice. 2 We conclude, following a careful review of the record, that the Appellate Court correctly determined that the defendant waived his unpreserved | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Moye v. Commissioner of Correction
green
2 sentences2025Moye v. Commissioner of Correction, 168 Conn. App. 207 , 145 A.3d 362 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 905 , 153 A.3d 653 (2017). 1 The petitioner was also convicted, following a plea of guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 , 91 S. Ct. 160 , 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970), of criminal possession of a pistol in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-217c (a) (1). 2025Moye v. Commissioner of Correction, 168 Conn. App. 207 , 145 A.3d 362 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 905 , 153 A.3d 653 (2017). 1 The petitioner was also convicted, following a plea of guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 , 91 S. Ct. 160 , 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970), of criminal possession of a pistol in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-217c (a) (1). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
North Carolina v. Alford
green
2 sentences2025Moye v. Commissioner of Correction, 168 Conn. App. 207 , 145 A.3d 362 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 905 , 153 A.3d 653 (2017). 1 The petitioner was also convicted, following a plea of guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 , 91 S. Ct. 160 , 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970), of criminal possession of a pistol in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-217c (a) (1). 2025Moye v. Commissioner of Correction, 168 Conn. App. 207 , 145 A.3d 362 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 905 , 153 A.3d 653 (2017). 1 The petitioner was also convicted, following a plea of guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 , 91 S. Ct. 160 , 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970), of criminal possession of a pistol in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-217c (a) (1). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Rivera
green
1 sentence2025Moye v. Commissioner of Correction, 168 Conn. App. 207 , 145 A.3d 362 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 905 , 153 A.3d 653 (2017). 1 The petitioner was also convicted, following a plea of guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 , 91 S. Ct. 160 , 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970), of criminal possession of a pistol in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-217c (a) (1). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Carter
green
2 sentences2015Those offenses are not at issue in this certified appeal. 2 The Appellate Court opinion appears to have relied on the defendant’s testimony, in which he claimed that he had said: ‘‘I would never pull a gun out on you.’’ See State v. Carter, 141 Conn. App. 377, 382 , 61 A.3d 1103 (2013). 2015Those offenses are not at issue in this certified appeal. 2 The Appellate Court opinion appears to have relied on the defendant’s testimony, in which he claimed that he had said: ‘‘I would never pull a gun out on you.’’ See State v. Carter, 141 Conn. App. 377, 382 , 61 A.3d 1103 (2013). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Connecticut v. Whelan
green
2 sentences1994The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). 4 The principal issue raised by the defendant is whether, after the jury had begun to deliberate, the trial court improperly permitted an alternate juror to replace an excused juror in violation of General Statutes § 54-82h (c).* 5 In addition, the defendant claims that: (1) the state’s closing argument to the jury was improper; (2) his conviction of criminal possession of a pistol rests upon insufficient evidence; (3) the trial court improperly admitted a prior inconsistent state 1994The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). 4 The principal issue raised by the defendant is whether, after the jury had begun to deliberate, the trial court improperly permitted an alternate juror to replace an excused juror in violation of General Statutes § 54-82h (c).* 5 In addition, the defendant claims that: (1) the state’s closing argument to the jury was improper; (2) his conviction of criminal possession of a pistol rests upon insufficient evidence; (3) the trial court improperly admitted a prior inconsistent state | 1 | 1994–1994 |
California v. Tyberg
green
1 sentence1994The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). 4 The principal issue raised by the defendant is whether, after the jury had begun to deliberate, the trial court improperly permitted an alternate juror to replace an excused juror in violation of General Statutes § 54-82h (c).* 5 In addition, the defendant claims that: (1) the state’s closing argument to the jury was improper; (2) his conviction of criminal possession of a pistol rests upon insufficient evidence; (3) the trial court improperly admitted a prior inconsistent state | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Whelan
green
2 sentences1994The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). 4 The principal issue raised by the defendant is whether, after the jury had begun to deliberate, the trial court improperly permitted an alternate juror to replace an excused juror in violation of General Statutes § 54-82h (c).* 5 In addition, the defendant claims that: (1) the state’s closing argument to the jury was improper; (2) his conviction of criminal possession of a pistol rests upon insufficient evidence; (3) the trial court improperly admitted a prior inconsistent state 1994The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). 4 The principal issue raised by the defendant is whether, after the jury had begun to deliberate, the trial court improperly permitted an alternate juror to replace an excused juror in violation of General Statutes § 54-82h (c).* 5 In addition, the defendant claims that: (1) the state’s closing argument to the jury was improper; (2) his conviction of criminal possession of a pistol rests upon insufficient evidence; (3) the trial court improperly admitted a prior inconsistent state | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.