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.
6 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Aliceagreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., State v. Alicea, 339 Conn. 385 , 399–400, 260 A.3d 1176 (2021). “[T]hat theory must have been not merely before the jury due to an incidental reference, but as part of a coherent theory of guilt that, upon [review of] the principal stages of trial, can be characterized as having been presented in a focused or otherwise cognizable sense. . . . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Warholicgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354, 368 , 897 A.2d 569 (2006) (‘‘closing arguments of counsel . . . are seldom carefully constructed in toto before the event; improvi- sation frequently results in syntax left imperfect and meaning less than crystal clear’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2016See State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354, 368 , 897 A.2d 569 (2006) (‘‘closing arguments of counsel . . . are seldom carefully constructed in toto before the event; improvi- sation frequently results in syntax left imperfect and meaning less than crystal clear’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dunn v. United States
green
2 sentences2016In Dunn [v. United States, 442 U.S. 100 , 99 S. Ct. 2190 , 60 L. 2016In Dunn [v. United States, 442 U.S. 100 , 99 S. Ct. 2190 , 60 L. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Chyung
green
2 sentences2022See, e.g., State v. Alicea, 339 Conn. 385 , 400, 260 A.3d 1176 (2021) (‘‘the theory of the case doctrine may be defensively incorporated into a legal inconsistency claim; that is, a defendant may preclude the state from relying on a novel factual theory of the case on appeal because a new theory cannot transform inconsistent verdicts into consistent ones if it was not presented to the jury at trial’’); State v. Chyung, 325 Conn. 236 , 255–56, 157 A.3d 628 (2017) (rejecting state’s claim ‘‘that the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant engaged in two separate acts with two separat 2022See, e.g., State v. Alicea, 339 Conn. 385 , 400, 260 A.3d 1176 (2021) (‘‘the theory of the case doctrine may be defensively incorporated into a legal inconsistency claim; that is, a defendant may preclude the state from relying on a novel factual theory of the case on appeal because a new theory cannot transform inconsistent verdicts into consistent ones if it was not presented to the jury at trial’’); State v. Chyung, 325 Conn. 236 , 255–56, 157 A.3d 628 (2017) (rejecting state’s claim ‘‘that the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant engaged in two separate acts with two separat | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. King
green
2 sentences2015Finally, in his reply brief, the defendant argues that pursuant to State v. King, 149 Conn. App. 361, 371 , 87 A.3d 1193 (2014), the state should be precluded from arguing that there were two separate and distinct crimes because of the theory of the case doctrine. 2015Finally, in his reply brief, the defendant argues that pursuant to State v. King, 149 Conn. App. 361, 371 , 87 A.3d 1193 (2014), the state should be precluded from arguing that there were two separate and distinct crimes because of the theory of the case doctrine. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.