characterization claim in Connecticut

2015In that case, the United States Supreme Court extended New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S. Ct. 710 , 11 L.

2015In that case, the United States Supreme Court extended New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , 84 S. Ct. 710 , 11 L.

2015Rather—and the dissent’s characterization of our analysis notwith- standing—we consider only whether the trial court’s factual findings were made in accordance with the principles of the first amendment. 16 Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, supra, 485 U.S. 46 , arose from a magazine’s publication of a parody cartoon depicting a prominent minister having sexual relations with his mother in an outhouse.

2006We now turn, therefore, to the dispositive issue in this appeal, namely, whether the Appellate Court properly *300 concluded that the DNA report and the expert testimony should have been admitted without the limitation that the expert not be allowed to mention semen and that the DNA report should be redacted accordingly. 8 We agree with the Appellate Court that the report and the testimony should have been admitted without the limitations. “[T]he rape shield statute . . . was enacted specifically to bar or limit the use of prior sexual conduct of an alleged victim of a sexual assault because i

2006We now turn, therefore, to the dispositive issue in this appeal, namely, whether the Appellate Court properly *300 concluded that the DNA report and the expert testimony should have been admitted without the limitation that the expert not be allowed to mention semen and that the DNA report should be redacted accordingly. 8 We agree with the Appellate Court that the report and the testimony should have been admitted without the limitations. “[T]he rape shield statute . . . was enacted specifically to bar or limit the use of prior sexual conduct of an alleged victim of a sexual assault because i

2002Amoco Oil Co. v. Liberty Auto Electric Co. , 262 Conn. 142 , 152 (2002).

2001The defendant argues that the characterization of a claim as ordinary negligence or medical malpractice does not turn on whether expert testimony is required. 2 In the present case, the plaintiff has alleged and is making an argument similar to the one made by the plaintiff in Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital , 243 Conn. 1 7, 699 A.2d 964 (1997).

1997The authority of United States v. Kordel , supra, and Securities Exchange Commission v. Dresser , supra, is that a stay is permissible in the interests of justice and occasions no serious injury to the public interest.

1990State v. Gagnon, 18 Conn. App. 694, 712 , 561 A.2d 129 (1989).

1990State v. Gagnon, 18 Conn. App. 694, 712 , 561 A.2d 129 (1989).

1980Becognizing the authority of the state Supreme Court in determining, under state law, the legal weight to be accorded a presumption, the court nonetheless stated that “a reasonable juror could well have been misled by the instruction given, and could have believed that the presumption was not limited to requiring the defendant to satisfy only a burden of production.” Id., 517 . 4 la State v. Arroyo, 180 Conn. 171 , 429 A.2d 457 , this court recognized that “Sandstrom does not invalidate the use of all inferences and presumptions with regard to criminal intent.” Viewing the charge as a whole, t

1980Becognizing the authority of the state Supreme Court in determining, under state law, the legal weight to be accorded a presumption, the court nonetheless stated that “a reasonable juror could well have been misled by the instruction given, and could have believed that the presumption was not limited to requiring the defendant to satisfy only a burden of production.” Id., 517 . 4 la State v. Arroyo, 180 Conn. 171 , 429 A.2d 457 , this court recognized that “Sandstrom does not invalidate the use of all inferences and presumptions with regard to criminal intent.” Viewing the charge as a whole, t

1980Becognizing the authority of the state Supreme Court in determining, under state law, the legal weight to be accorded a presumption, the court nonetheless stated that “a reasonable juror could well have been misled by the instruction given, and could have believed that the presumption was not limited to requiring the defendant to satisfy only a burden of production.” Id., 517 . 4 la State v. Arroyo, 180 Conn. 171 , 429 A.2d 457 , this court recognized that “Sandstrom does not invalidate the use of all inferences and presumptions with regard to criminal intent.” Viewing the charge as a whole, t