62 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1971–2026 10 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. McClaingreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802, 815 , 155 A.3d 209 (2017) (Kitchens waiver does not preclude appellate relief under plain error doctrine). 2026See, e.g., State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802, 815 , 155 A.3d 209 (2017) (Kitchens waiver does not preclude appellate relief under plain error doctrine). | 2 | 2 |
State v. William L.green2 sentences2021See, e.g., State v. William L., 126 Conn. App. 472 , 483 n.11, 11 A.3d 1132 (‘‘[w]e do not need to decide whether the defendant waived his claim, as we resolve the claim on other grounds’’), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 926 , 15 A.3d 628 (2011). 2021See, e.g., State v. William L., 126 Conn. App. 472 , 483 n.11, 11 A.3d 1132 (‘‘[w]e do not need to decide whether the defendant waived his claim, as we resolve the claim on other grounds’’), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 926 , 15 A.3d 628 (2011). | 2 | 2 |
State v. William L.green2 sentences2021See, e.g., State v. William L., 126 Conn. App. 472 , 483 n.11, 11 A.3d 1132 (‘‘[w]e do not need to decide whether the defendant waived his claim, as we resolve the claim on other grounds’’), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 926 , 15 A.3d 628 (2011). 2021See, e.g., State v. William L., 126 Conn. App. 472 , 483 n.11, 11 A.3d 1132 (‘‘[w]e do not need to decide whether the defendant waived his claim, as we resolve the claim on other grounds’’), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 926 , 15 A.3d 628 (2011). | 2 | 2 |
Hamlin v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen2 sentences2009There is also no difference between counsel stating that he has no comment about the charge and counsel stating that the charge as read was correct.” State v. Akande, supra, 608-609 ; see also State v. Velez, 113 Conn. App. 347, 357-59 , 966 A.2d 743 (failure to except to trial court’s response to jury question about proof of intent constituted waiver under Fabricatore), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 917 , 970 A.2d 729 (2009); State v. Farmer, 108 Conn. App. 82, 88 , 946 A.2d 1262 (failure to file request to charge or except to constancy of accusation instruction constituted waiver under Fabricatore 2009See Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 62, 73 , 967 A.2d 41 (2009) (noting that unpreserved, waived claims fail under third prong of Golding and declining to afford review under Golding to petitioner who waived claim); see also State v. Velez, 113 Conn. App. 347, 359 , 966 A.2d 743 (defendant’s waived claim of improper jury instruction fails under third prong of Golding), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 917 , 970 A.2d 729 (2009); State v. Duncan, supra, 96 Conn. App. 560 (same). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Peaygreen2 sentences2009There is also no difference between counsel stating that he has no comment about the charge and counsel stating that the charge as read was correct.” State v. Akande, supra, 608-609 ; see also State v. Velez, 113 Conn. App. 347, 357-59 , 966 A.2d 743 (failure to except to trial court’s response to jury question about proof of intent constituted waiver under Fabricatore), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 917 , 970 A.2d 729 (2009); State v. Farmer, 108 Conn. App. 82, 88 , 946 A.2d 1262 (failure to file request to charge or except to constancy of accusation instruction constituted waiver under Fabricatore 2009See Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 62, 73 , 967 A.2d 41 (2009) (noting that unpreserved, waived claims fail under third prong of Golding and declining to afford review under Golding to petitioner who waived claim); see also State v. Velez, 113 Conn. App. 347, 359 , 966 A.2d 743 (defendant’s waived claim of improper jury instruction fails under third prong of Golding), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 917 , 970 A.2d 729 (2009); State v. Duncan, supra, 96 Conn. App. 560 (same). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Velezgreen2 sentences2009See Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 62, 73 , 967 A.2d 41 (2009) (noting that unpreserved, waived claims fail under third prong of Golding and declining to afford review under Golding to petitioner who waived claim); see also State v. Velez, 113 Conn. App. 347, 359 , 966 A.2d 743 (defendant’s waived claim of improper jury instruction fails under third prong of Golding), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 917 , 970 A.2d 729 (2009); State v. Duncan, supra, 96 Conn. App. 560 (same). 2009See Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 62, 73 , 967 A.2d 41 (2009) (noting that unpreserved, waived claims fail under third prong of Golding and declining to afford review under Golding to petitioner who waived claim); see also State v. Velez, 113 Conn. App. 347, 359 , 966 A.2d 743 (defendant’s waived claim of improper jury instruction fails under third prong of Golding), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 917 , 970 A.2d 729 (2009); State v. Duncan, supra, 96 Conn. App. 560 (same). | 2 | 2 |
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences1995State v. Alfonso, 195 Conn. 624, 628 , 490 A.2d 75 (1985); State v. Perry, 195 Conn. 505 , 516 n.8, 488 A.2d 1256 (1985).’ State v. Aversa, 197 Conn. 685, 695 , 501 A.2d 370 (1985); see Miranda v. Arizona, supra [ 384 U.S. 436 ]. ‘The question is not one of form, but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in the Miranda case.’ North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S. Ct. 1755 , 60 L. 1987State v. Alfonso, 195 Conn. 624, 628 , 490 A.2d 75 (1985); State v. Perry, 195 Conn. 505 , 516 n.8, 488 A.2d 1256 (1985).’ State v. Aversa, 197 Conn. 685, 695 , 501 A.2d 370 (1985); see Miranda v. Arizona, [ 384 U.S. 436, 475 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. | 2 | 2 |
North Carolina v. Butlerred2 sentences1995State v. Alfonso, 195 Conn. 624, 628 , 490 A.2d 75 (1985); State v. Perry, 195 Conn. 505 , 516 n.8, 488 A.2d 1256 (1985).’ State v. Aversa, 197 Conn. 685, 695 , 501 A.2d 370 (1985); see Miranda v. Arizona, supra [ 384 U.S. 436 ]. ‘The question is not one of form, but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in the Miranda case.’ North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S. Ct. 1755 , 60 L. 1995State v. Alfonso, 195 Conn. 624, 628 , 490 A.2d 75 (1985); State v. Perry, 195 Conn. 505 , 516 n.8, 488 A.2d 1256 (1985).’ State v. Aversa, 197 Conn. 685, 695 , 501 A.2d 370 (1985); see Miranda v. Arizona, supra [ 384 U.S. 436 ]. ‘The question is not one of form, but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in the Miranda case.’ North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S. Ct. 1755 , 60 L. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kitchensgreen2 sentences2026I We first address the defendant’s claim that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury on a theory of liability that was not charged in the infor- mation, in violation of his sixth amendment right to be informed of the charges against him.4 The court instructed the jury, in accordance with subdivision 3 The state filed a substitute information on July 18, 2023, that deleted an erroneous reference to General Statutes § 53a-48 and fixed a few minor errors, but the substitute information was otherwise identical to the July 7, 2023 information. 4 Because the defendant waived h 2026I We first address the defendant’s claim that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury on a theory of liability that was not charged in the infor- mation, in violation of his sixth amendment right to be informed of the charges against him.4 The court instructed the jury, in accordance with subdivision 3 The state filed a substitute information on July 18, 2023, that deleted an erroneous reference to General Statutes § 53a-48 and fixed a few minor errors, but the substitute information was otherwise identical to the July 7, 2023 information. 4 Because the defendant waived h | 1 | 14 |
State v. Francisgreen2 sentences2008Because we conclude that the defendant waived this claim at trial, we do not review the claim under Golding or the plain error doctrine. “[WJaiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wilson, 52 Conn. App. 802, 810 , 729 A.2d 778 (1999). “[A] valid waiver calls into question the existence of a constitutional violation depriving the defendant of a fair trial for the purpose of Golding review [and it] also thwarts plain error review of a *89 claim.” State v. Corona, 69 Conn. App. 267, 274 , 794 A.2d 565 , cert. denied, 2 2008Because we conclude that the defendant waived this claim at trial, we do not review the claim under Golding or the plain error doctrine. “[WJaiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wilson, 52 Conn. App. 802, 810 , 729 A.2d 778 (1999). “[A] valid waiver calls into question the existence of a constitutional violation depriving the defendant of a fair trial for the purpose of Golding review [and it] also thwarts plain error review of a *89 claim.” State v. Corona, 69 Conn. App. 267, 274 , 794 A.2d 565 , cert. denied, 2 | 1 | 2 |
State v. Coronagreen2 sentences2008Because we conclude that the defendant waived this claim at trial, we do not review the claim under Golding or the plain error doctrine. “[WJaiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wilson, 52 Conn. App. 802, 810 , 729 A.2d 778 (1999). “[A] valid waiver calls into question the existence of a constitutional violation depriving the defendant of a fair trial for the purpose of Golding review [and it] also thwarts plain error review of a *89 claim.” State v. Corona, 69 Conn. App. 267, 274 , 794 A.2d 565 , cert. denied, 2 2008Because we conclude that the defendant waived this claim at trial, we do not review the claim under Golding or the plain error doctrine. “[WJaiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wilson, 52 Conn. App. 802, 810 , 729 A.2d 778 (1999). “[A] valid waiver calls into question the existence of a constitutional violation depriving the defendant of a fair trial for the purpose of Golding review [and it] also thwarts plain error review of a *89 claim.” State v. Corona, 69 Conn. App. 267, 274 , 794 A.2d 565 , cert. denied, 2 | 1 | 2 |
State v. Akandegreen2 sentences2011We granted certification to appeal limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the defendant waived his claim that the jury instructions were constitutionally deficient?" State v. Akande, 290 Conn. 918, 919 , 966 A.2d 237 (2009). 2011We granted certification to appeal limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the defendant waived his claim that the jury instructions were constitutionally deficient?" State v. Akande, 290 Conn. 918, 919 , 966 A.2d 237 (2009). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Luis F.green2 sentences2016See State v. Luis F., 85 Conn.App. 264 , 271 n. 1, 856 A.2d 522 (2004). 2016See State v. Luis F., 85 Conn.App. 264 , 271 n. 1, 856 A.2d 522 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cowardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Fabricatoregreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Duncangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mozell v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Coltherstgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Warholicgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Minergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Finanred2 sentences2022After reviewing the entire record, including comments made by defense counsel in response to questions posed by the trial court during the charge conference, we conclude that the defendant waived this claim of error. 7 In his brief, the defendant raised an additional claim of prosecutorial impropriety, claiming that the prosecutor improperly had elicited opinion evidence regarding identification of the defendant from Lorvita, who was not an eyewitness to the crime, in violation of State v. Finan, 275 Conn. 60 , 881 A.2d 187 (2005), overruled by State v. Gore, 342 Conn. 129 , 269 A.3d 1 (2022). 2022After reviewing the entire record, including comments made by defense counsel in response to questions posed by the trial court during the charge conference, we conclude that the defendant waived this claim of error. 7 In his brief, the defendant raised an additional claim of prosecutorial impropriety, claiming that the prosecutor improperly had elicited opinion evidence regarding identification of the defendant from Lorvita, who was not an eyewitness to the crime, in violation of State v. Finan, 275 Conn. 60 , 881 A.2d 187 (2005), overruled by State v. Gore, 342 Conn. 129 , 269 A.3d 1 (2022). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Golding
green
2 sentences2016The defendant concedes that this claim is unpreserved and seeks review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), or, in the alternative, that we reverse his conviction pursuant to the plain error *843 doctrine. 2 The state counters that (1) the record is inadequate to review the defendant's claim, (2) the defendant waived this claim by expressly agreeing to the court's practice, (3) the defendant's brief is inadequate and (4) the claim fails on the merits. 2016The defendant concedes that this claim is unpreserved and seeks review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), or, in the alternative, that we reverse his conviction pursuant to the plain error *843 doctrine. 2 The state counters that (1) the record is inadequate to review the defendant's claim, (2) the defendant waived this claim by expressly agreeing to the court's practice, (3) the defendant's brief is inadequate and (4) the claim fails on the merits. | 6 | 2003–2016 |
State v. Toste
green
2 sentences1998Pursuant to the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, “a statement made by a defendant during custodial interrogation is admissible only upon proof that he . . . waived his rights [under Miranda] to remain silent . . . .” State v. Simms, 201 Conn. 395, 411 , 518 A.2d 35 (1986). “ ‘In order to show that the defendant waived his privilege against self-incrimination, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional right to remain silent.’ ” State v. Toste, 198 Conn. 573, 579 , 504 A.2d 1036 (1986). 1998Pursuant to the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, “a statement made by a defendant during custodial interrogation is admissible only upon proof that he . . . waived his rights [under Miranda] to remain silent . . . .” State v. Simms, 201 Conn. 395, 411 , 518 A.2d 35 (1986). “ ‘In order to show that the defendant waived his privilege against self-incrimination, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional right to remain silent.’ ” State v. Toste, 198 Conn. 573, 579 , 504 A.2d 1036 (1986). | 5 | 1998–2002 |
State v. Perry
green
2 sentences1995State v. Alfonso, 195 Conn. 624, 628 , 490 A.2d 75 (1985); State v. Perry, 195 Conn. 505 , 516 n.8, 488 A.2d 1256 (1985).’ State v. Aversa, 197 Conn. 685, 695 , 501 A.2d 370 (1985); see Miranda v. Arizona, supra [ 384 U.S. 436 ]. ‘The question is not one of form, but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in the Miranda case.’ North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S. Ct. 1755 , 60 L. 1995State v. Alfonso, 195 Conn. 624, 628 , 490 A.2d 75 (1985); State v. Perry, 195 Conn. 505 , 516 n.8, 488 A.2d 1256 (1985).’ State v. Aversa, 197 Conn. 685, 695 , 501 A.2d 370 (1985); see Miranda v. Arizona, supra [ 384 U.S. 436 ]. ‘The question is not one of form, but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in the Miranda case.’ North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S. Ct. 1755 , 60 L. | 4 | 1985–1995 |
State v. Alfonso
green
2 sentences1995State v. Alfonso, 195 Conn. 624, 628 , 490 A.2d 75 (1985); State v. Perry, 195 Conn. 505 , 516 n.8, 488 A.2d 1256 (1985).’ State v. Aversa, 197 Conn. 685, 695 , 501 A.2d 370 (1985); see Miranda v. Arizona, supra [ 384 U.S. 436 ]. ‘The question is not one of form, but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in the Miranda case.’ North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S. Ct. 1755 , 60 L. 1995State v. Alfonso, 195 Conn. 624, 628 , 490 A.2d 75 (1985); State v. Perry, 195 Conn. 505 , 516 n.8, 488 A.2d 1256 (1985).’ State v. Aversa, 197 Conn. 685, 695 , 501 A.2d 370 (1985); see Miranda v. Arizona, supra [ 384 U.S. 436 ]. ‘The question is not one of form, but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in the Miranda case.’ North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S. Ct. 1755 , 60 L. | 4 | 1985–1995 |
State v. Aversa
green
2 sentences1995State v. Alfonso, 195 Conn. 624, 628 , 490 A.2d 75 (1985); State v. Perry, 195 Conn. 505 , 516 n.8, 488 A.2d 1256 (1985).’ State v. Aversa, 197 Conn. 685, 695 , 501 A.2d 370 (1985); see Miranda v. Arizona, supra [ 384 U.S. 436 ]. ‘The question is not one of form, but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in the Miranda case.’ North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S. Ct. 1755 , 60 L. 1995State v. Alfonso, 195 Conn. 624, 628 , 490 A.2d 75 (1985); State v. Perry, 195 Conn. 505 , 516 n.8, 488 A.2d 1256 (1985).’ State v. Aversa, 197 Conn. 685, 695 , 501 A.2d 370 (1985); see Miranda v. Arizona, supra [ 384 U.S. 436 ]. ‘The question is not one of form, but rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived the rights delineated in the Miranda case.’ North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373 , 99 S. Ct. 1755 , 60 L. | 3 | 1986–1995 |
State v. Calhoun
green
2 sentences2024The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the prosecutor had impermissibly vouched for H’s and B’s credibility by introducing the truthfulness provisions of their cooperation agreements, eliciting testi- mony from H and B that their attorneys were present in the courtroom, and referencing their prior testimony in other criminal cases on behalf of the state: This court, relying on State v. Calhoun ( 346 Conn. 288 ) and State v. Flores ( 344 Conn. 713 ), concluded that the introduction of the truthfulness provisions of H’s and B’s cooperation agreements did not constitute improper vouchi 2024The state further argues that, even if the claim was not waived, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the challenged testimony under State v. Cal- houn, 346 Conn. 288 , 289 A.3d 584 (2023), and State v. Helwig understands that the charges for which he has entered pleas carry an exposure of thirty years incarceration. ‘‘It is understood that Helwig is obligated pursuant to this agreement to at all times give complete and truthful information and testimony. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Flores
green
1 sentence2024The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the prosecutor had impermissibly vouched for H’s and B’s credibility by introducing the truthfulness provisions of their cooperation agreements, eliciting testi- mony from H and B that their attorneys were present in the courtroom, and referencing their prior testimony in other criminal cases on behalf of the state: This court, relying on State v. Calhoun ( 346 Conn. 288 ) and State v. Flores ( 344 Conn. 713 ), concluded that the introduction of the truthfulness provisions of H’s and B’s cooperation agreements did not constitute improper vouchi | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Bruny
green
1 sentence2022At oral argument, the defendant abandoned this claim, in light of our recent decisions in State v. Gore, supra, 148–49, and State v. Bruny, 342 Conn. 169 , 269 A.3d 38 (2022). 8 ‘‘For an act of violence to be justified as self-defense, (1) the defendant must actually have believed that the victim was using or was about to use physical force against him, (2) a reasonable person, viewing all the circumstances from the defendant’s point of view, would have shared that belief, (3) the defendant must actually have believed that the degree of force he used was necessary for defending himself or hers | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Mekoshvili
green
1 sentence2022At oral argument, the defendant abandoned this claim, in light of our recent decisions in State v. Gore, supra, 148–49, and State v. Bruny, 342 Conn. 169 , 269 A.3d 38 (2022). 8 ‘‘For an act of violence to be justified as self-defense, (1) the defendant must actually have believed that the victim was using or was about to use physical force against him, (2) a reasonable person, viewing all the circumstances from the defendant’s point of view, would have shared that belief, (3) the defendant must actually have believed that the degree of force he used was necessary for defending himself or hers | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2021Specifically, defense counsel cited State v. Brown, 299 Conn. 640, 659 , 11 A.3d 663 (2011), and State v. Ruocco, 151 Conn. App. 732 , 742–43, 95 A.3d 573 (2014), aff’d, 322 Conn. 796 , 144 A.3d 354 (2016), for the proposition that ‘‘the state bears the burden of proving the defendant waived a claim of instructional error.’’9 At oral argument before this court, the defendant’s appellate counsel referenced the point in the charging conference when the trial court, while reciting the proposed charge on burglary in the second degree as alleged in count six, stated: ‘‘Threatening in the second deg 2021Specifically, defense counsel cited State v. Brown, 299 Conn. 640, 659 , 11 A.3d 663 (2011), and State v. Ruocco, 151 Conn. App. 732 , 742–43, 95 A.3d 573 (2014), aff’d, 322 Conn. 796 , 144 A.3d 354 (2016), for the proposition that ‘‘the state bears the burden of proving the defendant waived a claim of instructional error.’’9 At oral argument before this court, the defendant’s appellate counsel referenced the point in the charging conference when the trial court, while reciting the proposed charge on burglary in the second degree as alleged in count six, stated: ‘‘Threatening in the second deg | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2021The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that his rights under Brady v. Maryland ( 373 U.S. 83 ) were violated, which was based on his claim that the prosecutors were required to personally review the victim’s journals for exculpatory information and that this task could not have been delegated to a nonlawyer member of their office: although, ultimately, the obligation for complying with Brady rests with the prose- cutor, it does not follow that the personal review of items such as the victim’s journals by a prosecutor is constitutionally required. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Ruocco
green
2 sentences2021Specifically, defense counsel cited State v. Brown, 299 Conn. 640, 659 , 11 A.3d 663 (2011), and State v. Ruocco, 151 Conn. App. 732 , 742–43, 95 A.3d 573 (2014), aff’d, 322 Conn. 796 , 144 A.3d 354 (2016), for the proposition that ‘‘the state bears the burden of proving the defendant waived a claim of instructional error.’’9 At oral argument before this court, the defendant’s appellate counsel referenced the point in the charging conference when the trial court, while reciting the proposed charge on burglary in the second degree as alleged in count six, stated: ‘‘Threatening in the second deg 2021Specifically, defense counsel cited State v. Brown, 299 Conn. 640, 659 , 11 A.3d 663 (2011), and State v. Ruocco, 151 Conn. App. 732 , 742–43, 95 A.3d 573 (2014), aff’d, 322 Conn. 796 , 144 A.3d 354 (2016), for the proposition that ‘‘the state bears the burden of proving the defendant waived a claim of instructional error.’’9 At oral argument before this court, the defendant’s appellate counsel referenced the point in the charging conference when the trial court, while reciting the proposed charge on burglary in the second degree as alleged in count six, stated: ‘‘Threatening in the second deg | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Harp v. King
green
2 sentences2020According to the state, the defendant was the only person who knew about the existence, location, and placements of the documents in her home, and she alone had the ‘‘responsibility to assert and maintain [the attorney-client privilege] . . . and failed to do so.’’ (Citation omitted.) Our precedent on the issue indicates that ‘‘[voluntary] disclosure of confidential communications . . . consti- tutes a waiver of [the] privilege as to those items.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Harp v. King, 266 Conn. 747, 767 , 835 A.2d 953 (2003). 2020According to the state, the defendant was the only person who knew about the existence, location, and placements of the documents in her home, and she alone had the ‘‘responsibility to assert and maintain [the attorney-client privilege] . . . and failed to do so.’’ (Citation omitted.) Our precedent on the issue indicates that ‘‘[voluntary] disclosure of confidential communications . . . consti- tutes a waiver of [the] privilege as to those items.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Harp v. King, 266 Conn. 747, 767 , 835 A.2d 953 (2003). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Acampora
neutral
1 sentence2020Id., 214–16. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bigelow v. Comm'r of Corr.
green
2 sentences2018"An appellate court must defer to the trier of fact's assessment of credibility because [i]t is the [fact finder] ... [who has] an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and the parties; thus [the fact finder] is best able to judge the credibility of the witnesses and to draw necessary inferences from them." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cimino v. Cimino , 174 Conn. App. 1 , 11, 164 A.3d 787 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 929 , 171 A.3d 455 (2017). 2018"An appellate court must defer to the trier of fact's assessment of credibility because [i]t is the [fact finder] ... [who has] an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and the parties; thus [the fact finder] is best able to judge the credibility of the witnesses and to draw necessary inferences from them." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cimino v. Cimino , 174 Conn. App. 1 , 11, 164 A.3d 787 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 929 , 171 A.3d 455 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Cimino v. Cimino
green
2 sentences2018"An appellate court must defer to the trier of fact's assessment of credibility because [i]t is the [fact finder] ... [who has] an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and the parties; thus [the fact finder] is best able to judge the credibility of the witnesses and to draw necessary inferences from them." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cimino v. Cimino , 174 Conn. App. 1 , 11, 164 A.3d 787 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 929 , 171 A.3d 455 (2017). 2018"An appellate court must defer to the trier of fact's assessment of credibility because [i]t is the [fact finder] ... [who has] an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and the parties; thus [the fact finder] is best able to judge the credibility of the witnesses and to draw necessary inferences from them." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cimino v. Cimino , 174 Conn. App. 1 , 11, 164 A.3d 787 , cert. denied, 327 Conn. 929 , 171 A.3d 455 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Franklin v. Superior Casting green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Haynes v. City of Middletown green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Coleman green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Crawford v. Washington green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Saia green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Duell green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Farmer green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. THOMAS W. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Brown green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Akande neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Blake green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Statewide Grievance Committee v. Brown green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Statewide Grievance Committee v. Brown green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Wilson green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Spiegelmann green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Smith neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Robinson green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Henderson green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Adams green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Cooper green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Cooper v. Connecticut green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Weber v. Wood green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Tracy v. Chief of the National Guard Bureau green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Drakeford green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.