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 1971–2002 0 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. Marquezgreen2 sentences1985See State v. Marquez, 160 Conn. 47, 52-53 , 273 A.2d 689 (1970). 1985See State v. Marquez, 160 Conn. 47, 52-53 , 273 A.2d 689 (1970). | 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. McClendon
green
2 sentences1996State v. McClendon, 199 Conn. 5, 12 , 505 A.2d 685 (1986).” State v. Varszegi, supra, 36 Conn. App. 687 n.5 Because we conclude that the defendant was not deprived of his right to due process, we need not reach the second certified question, namely, whether the deprivation was harmless. 1996State v. McClendon, 199 Conn. 5, 12 , 505 A.2d 685 (1986).” State v. Varszegi, supra, 36 Conn. App. 687 n.5 Because we conclude that the defendant was not deprived of his right to due process, we need not reach the second certified question, namely, whether the deprivation was harmless. | 2 | 1995–1996 |
State v. Steve
green
1 sentence2002Id., 42 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Casanova
red
2 sentences2001In our recent decision in State v. Casanova, 255 Conn. 581, 600-601 , 767 A.2d 1189 (2001), which was released after the defendant in the present case filed his briefs with this court, we held that the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to use the “neutral” language suggested by the defendant and instead instructing the jury that it could not draw a negative inference from the defendant’s “failure to testify.” We concluded that the trial court’s instruction, in its entirety, was “neither negative in substance nor improper,” and 2001In our recent decision in State v. Casanova, 255 Conn. 581, 600-601 , 767 A.2d 1189 (2001), which was released after the defendant in the present case filed his briefs with this court, we held that the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to use the “neutral” language suggested by the defendant and instead instructing the jury that it could not draw a negative inference from the defendant’s “failure to testify.” We concluded that the trial court’s instruction, in its entirety, was “neither negative in substance nor improper,” and | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Casanova
neutral
2 sentences2001The defendant, John Casanova, Jr., appeals, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction for assault of a peace officer in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 53U-167C. 1 On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant had claimed that the trial court improperly: (1) denied him his right to cross-examine the state’s witnesses and to present a defense by excluding cross-examination pertaining to the entry of two police officers into the defendant’s home; and (2) refused to use “neutral” languag 2001The defendant, John Casanova, Jr., appeals, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction for assault of a peace officer in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 53U-167C. 1 On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant had claimed that the trial court improperly: (1) denied him his right to cross-examine the state’s witnesses and to present a defense by excluding cross-examination pertaining to the entry of two police officers into the defendant’s home; and (2) refused to use “neutral” languag | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Evans
green
2 sentences1982Although no objection was raised nor exception taken to such use of this testimony at the trial, as required to preserve a claim of error in the admission of evidence; Practice Book §§ 288, 3063; the defendant seeks review of this claimed violation of his right to counsel under the exception we have established for a deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right; State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973) ; and also under our discretionary power to notice “plain error.” Practice Book § 3063. 1982Although no objection was raised nor exception taken to such use of this testimony at the trial, as required to preserve a claim of error in the admission of evidence; Practice Book §§ 288, 3063; the defendant seeks review of this claimed violation of his right to counsel under the exception we have established for a deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right; State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973) ; and also under our discretionary power to notice “plain error.” Practice Book § 3063. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.