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 2008–2023 1 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. Kitchensgreen2 sentences2023Contrary to the state’s claim, defense counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s proposed jury instructions, which omitted a specific unanimity instruction on the first degree sexual assault charge, did not constitute an implicit waiver of the defendant’s unpreserved instructional error claim under the rule set forth in State v. Kitchens ( 299 Conn. 447 ): The defendant’s claim involved his right to jury unanimity as to instances of conduct, which arises when a defendant is charged in a single count with having violated a single statutory provision on multiple, separate occasions, and t 2016In that case, the Appellate Court declined to review the unpreserved instructional claim of Juma A. Lahai pursuant to Kitchens ; id., at 459-60 , 10 A.3d 942 ; even though the state itself conceded that the court's instruction had improperly placed on Lahai the burden of proving self-defense. | 1 | 2 |
Joseph v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Actgreen2 sentences2016In that case, the Appellate Court declined to review the unpreserved instructional claim of Juma A. Lahai pursu- ant to Kitchens; id., 459–60; even though the state itself conceded that the court’s instruction had improperly placed on Lahai the burden of proving self-defense. 2016In that case, the Appellate Court declined to review the unpreserved instructional claim of Juma A. Lahai pursuant to Kitchens ; id., at 459-60 , 10 A.3d 942 ; even though the state itself conceded that the court's instruction had improperly placed on Lahai the burden of proving self-defense. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dewsgreen1 sentence2008See State v. Dews, 87 Conn. App. 63, 69 , 864 A.2d59, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dewsgreen2 sentences2008See State v. Dews, 87 Conn. App. 63, 69 , 864 A.2d59, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005). 2008See State v. Dews, 87 Conn. App. 63, 69 , 864 A.2d59, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 901 , 876 A.2d 13 (2005). | 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. Golding
green
2 sentences2016In this opinion EVELEIGH, ESPINOSA and ROB- INSON, Js., concurred. 1 The court granted certification on the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the defendant’s unpreserved instructional claim had been waived under [Kitchens]?’’ State v. Bellamy, 312 Conn. 914 , 93 A.3d 597 (2014). 2 On November 18, 2015, after oral argument had been scheduled, we ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the following issue: ‘‘Should this court overrule [Kitchens] and permit review of unpreserved claims of instructional error that meet the reviewability requirements of S 2016In this opinion EVELEIGH, ESPINOSA and ROB- INSON, Js., concurred. 1 The court granted certification on the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the defendant’s unpreserved instructional claim had been waived under [Kitchens]?’’ State v. Bellamy, 312 Conn. 914 , 93 A.3d 597 (2014). 2 On November 18, 2015, after oral argument had been scheduled, we ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the following issue: ‘‘Should this court overrule [Kitchens] and permit review of unpreserved claims of instructional error that meet the reviewability requirements of S | 4 | 2008–2016 |
State v. Douglas C.
green
1 sentence2023Contrary to the state’s claim, defense counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s proposed jury instructions, which omitted a specific unanimity instruction on the first degree sexual assault charge, did not constitute an implicit waiver of the defendant’s unpreserved instructional error claim under the rule set forth in State v. Kitchens ( 299 Conn. 447 ): The defendant’s claim involved his right to jury unanimity as to instances of conduct, which arises when a defendant is charged in a single count with having violated a single statutory provision on multiple, separate occasions, and t | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. DeJesus
green
2 sentences2010Our Supreme Court has held that the admission of uncharged sexual misconduct evidence "must be accompanied by an appropriate cautionary instruction to the jury"; State v. DeJesus, supra, 288 Conn. at 474 , 953 A.2d 45 ; and the court's instructions in this regard are relevant to an assessment of the prejudicial effect of the evidence. 2010Our Supreme Court has held that the admission of uncharged sexual misconduct evidence "must be accompanied by an appropriate cautionary instruction to the jury"; State v. DeJesus, supra, 288 Conn. at 474 , 953 A.2d 45 ; and the court's instructions in this regard are relevant to an assessment of the prejudicial effect of the evidence. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. DeJesus
green
2 sentences2008The Appellate Court rejected each of these claims, concluding that: (1) the defendant's unpreserved instructional claim was not of constitutional magnitude and, therefore, the defendant could not prevail under the second prong of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989); State v. DeJesus, supra, at 65-70, 880 A.2d 910 ; (2) the trial court had not abused its discretion by denying the defendant's request for an in camera review of the victim's confidential records because the defendant failed to establish "through the testimony of those persons with knowledge of the records 2008The Appellate Court rejected each of these claims, concluding that: (1) the defendant's unpreserved instructional claim was not of constitutional magnitude and, therefore, the defendant could not prevail under the second prong of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989); State v. DeJesus, supra, at 65-70, 880 A.2d 910 ; (2) the trial court had not abused its discretion by denying the defendant's request for an in camera review of the victim's confidential records because the defendant failed to establish "through the testimony of those persons with knowledge of the records | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.