availability defense in Connecticut

2001An instruction on the defendant’s theory of defense is required only when “the evidence indicates the availability of that defense . . . .” State v. Fuller, 199 Conn. 273, 278 , 506 A.2d 556 (1986).

2001An instruction on the defendant’s theory of defense is required only when “the evidence indicates the availability of that defense . . . .” State v. Fuller, 199 Conn. 273, 278 , 506 A.2d 556 (1986).

1997Id., 707-708 . “[A] defendant is ‘entitled to have instructions presented relating to any theory of defense for which there is any foundation in the evidence, no matter how weak or incredible . . . .’ United States v. Platt, 435 F.2d 789, 792 (2d Cir. 1970), quoting United States v. O’Connor, 237 F.2d 466 , 474 n.8 (2d Cir. 1956).” United States v. Alfonso-Perez, 535 F.2d 1362, 1365 (2d Cir. 1976).

1987“If the defendant asserts a recognized legal defense and the evidence indicates the availability of that defense, such a charge is obligatory and the defendant is entitled, as a matter of law, to a theory of defense instruction. [State v. Rosado, 178 Conn. 704, 707-708 , 425 A.2d 108 (1979)]. ‘[A] defendant is “entitled to have instructions presented relating to any theoiy of defense for which there is any foundation in the evidence, no matter how weak or incredible . . . . ” United States v. Platt, 435 F.2d 789, 792 (2d Cir. 1970), quoting United States v. O’Connor, 237 F.2d 466 , 474 n.8 (2d

2017The trial court should not submit an issue to the jury that is unsupported by the facts in evidence." (Citations omitted; internal quotation *37 marks omitted.) State v. Adams , 225 Conn. 270 , 283, 623 A.2d 42 (1993).

2017The trial court should not submit an issue to the jury that is unsupported by the facts in evidence." (Citations omitted; internal quotation *37 marks omitted.) State v. Adams , 225 Conn. 270 , 283, 623 A.2d 42 (1993).

2024IV The petitioner also claims that the habeas court erred when it concluded that his second habeas counsel, Mul- laney, and his third habeas counsel, Goddard and Wal- dron, had not rendered ineffective assistance28 by failing 28 When our Supreme Court decided Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correc- tion, 324 Conn. 548 , 570–71, 153 A.3d 1233 (2017), holding that a petitioner may bring a habeas petition predicated on ineffective assistance of second habeas counsel, it expressed no view as to the availability of a claim of Page 42 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 44 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Cator v. Commissioner

2024IV The petitioner also claims that the habeas court erred when it concluded that his second habeas counsel, Mul- laney, and his third habeas counsel, Goddard and Wal- dron, had not rendered ineffective assistance28 by failing 28 When our Supreme Court decided Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correc- tion, 324 Conn. 548 , 570–71, 153 A.3d 1233 (2017), holding that a petitioner may bring a habeas petition predicated on ineffective assistance of second habeas counsel, it expressed no view as to the availability of a claim of Page 42 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 44 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Cator v. Commissioner

2009Thus, “[i]f [a] defendant asserts a recognized legal defense and the evidence indicates the availability of that defense . . . the defendant is entitled, as a matter of law, to a theory of defense instruction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lynch, 287 Conn. 464, 470 , 948 A.2d 1026 (2008).

2009Thus, “[i]f [a] defendant asserts a recognized legal defense and the evidence indicates the availability of that defense . . . the defendant is entitled, as a matter of law, to a theory of defense instruction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lynch, 287 Conn. 464, 470 , 948 A.2d 1026 (2008).

2008“It is trae that [i]f the defendant asserts a recognized legal defense and the evidence indicates the availability of that defense, such a charge is obligatory and the defendant is entitled, as a matter of law, to a theory of defense instruction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cruz, 75 Conn. App. 500, 510 , 816 A.2d 683 (2003), aff'd, 269 Conn. 97 , 848 A.2d 445 (2004).

2008“It is trae that [i]f the defendant asserts a recognized legal defense and the evidence indicates the availability of that defense, such a charge is obligatory and the defendant is entitled, as a matter of law, to a theory of defense instruction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cruz, 75 Conn. App. 500, 510 , 816 A.2d 683 (2003), aff'd, 269 Conn. 97 , 848 A.2d 445 (2004).

2008“It is trae that [i]f the defendant asserts a recognized legal defense and the evidence indicates the availability of that defense, such a charge is obligatory and the defendant is entitled, as a matter of law, to a theory of defense instruction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cruz, 75 Conn. App. 500, 510 , 816 A.2d 683 (2003), aff'd, 269 Conn. 97 , 848 A.2d 445 (2004).

2008“It is trae that [i]f the defendant asserts a recognized legal defense and the evidence indicates the availability of that defense, such a charge is obligatory and the defendant is entitled, as a matter of law, to a theory of defense instruction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cruz, 75 Conn. App. 500, 510 , 816 A.2d 683 (2003), aff'd, 269 Conn. 97 , 848 A.2d 445 (2004).

2009A fundamental element of due process is the right of a defendant charged with a crime to establish a defense.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Davis, 261 Conn. 553, 573 , 804 A.2d 781 (2002).

2009A fundamental element of due process is the right of a defendant charged with a crime to establish a defense.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Davis, 261 Conn. 553, 573 , 804 A.2d 781 (2002).

2001We are guided by the principle that “[i]f the defendant asserts a recognized legal defense and the evidence indicates the availability of that defense, such a charge is obligatory and the defendant is entitled, as a matter of law, to a theory of defense instruction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carter, 232 Conn. 537, 545 , 656 A.2d 657 (1995).

2001We are guided by the principle that “[i]f the defendant asserts a recognized legal defense and the evidence indicates the availability of that defense, such a charge is obligatory and the defendant is entitled, as a matter of law, to a theory of defense instruction.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carter, 232 Conn. 537, 545 , 656 A.2d 657 (1995).

1947The availability requirement of the aot was considered in Reger v. Administrator, 132 Conn. 647, 650 , and it was there held that the requirement was satisfied when an individual was willing, able and ready to accept suitable work which he does not have good cause (to refuse; and that, as long as no provision of the act disqualifies him, he is entitled to its benefits when he has exposed himself unequivocally to the labor market.

1947This availability requirement is satisfied ‘when an individual is willing, able, and ready to accept suitable work which he does not have good cause to refuse, that is, when he is genuinely attached to the labor market.’ Rever v. Administrator, 132 Conn. 647, 651 .

2020The defendant’s right to such an instruction is founded on the principles of due process.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lynch, 287 Conn. 464, 470 , 948 A.2d 1026 (2008). ‘‘A challenge to the validity of jury instructions presents a question of law over which this court has plenary review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mann v. Reagan, 108 Conn. App. 566, 576 , 948 A.2d 1075 (2008).

2020The defendant’s right to such an instruction is founded on the principles of due process.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lynch, 287 Conn. 464, 470 , 948 A.2d 1026 (2008). ‘‘A challenge to the validity of jury instructions presents a question of law over which this court has plenary review.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mann v. Reagan, 108 Conn. App. 566, 576 , 948 A.2d 1075 (2008).

2015The court was not required to accept the defendant’s requests to charge because his claims were not legally recognized defenses and were not supported by the evidence. ‘‘An instruction on a legally recognized theory of defense . . . is warranted only if the evidence indi- cates the availability of that defense.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) State v. Vilchel, 112 Conn. App. 411, 418 , 963 A.2d 658 , cert. denied, 291 Conn. 907 , 969 A.2d 173 (2009).

2015The court was not required to accept the defendant’s requests to charge because his claims were not legally recognized defenses and were not supported by the evidence. ‘‘An instruction on a legally recognized theory of defense . . . is warranted only if the evidence indi- cates the availability of that defense.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) State v. Vilchel, 112 Conn. App. 411, 418 , 963 A.2d 658 , cert. denied, 291 Conn. 907 , 969 A.2d 173 (2009).

2015The court was not required to accept the defendant’s requests to charge because his claims were not legally recognized defenses and were not supported by the evidence. ‘‘An instruction on a legally recognized theory of defense . . . is warranted only if the evidence indi- cates the availability of that defense.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) State v. Vilchel, 112 Conn. App. 411, 418 , 963 A.2d 658 , cert. denied, 291 Conn. 907 , 969 A.2d 173 (2009).

2015The court was not required to accept the defendant’s requests to charge because his claims were not legally recognized defenses and were not supported by the evidence. ‘‘An instruction on a legally recognized theory of defense . . . is warranted only if the evidence indi- cates the availability of that defense.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) State v. Vilchel, 112 Conn. App. 411, 418 , 963 A.2d 658 , cert. denied, 291 Conn. 907 , 969 A.2d 173 (2009).

2014“To satisfy the availability requirement, the [party] must put forth sufficient evidence before the jury to support a conclusion that the witness was available at the time of trial.” State v. Owen, 40 Conn. App. 132, 138 , 669 A.2d 606 , cert. denied, 236 Conn. 912 , 673 A.2d 114 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 922 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996).

2014“To satisfy the availability requirement, the [party] must put forth sufficient evidence before the jury to support a conclusion that the witness was available at the time of trial.” State v. Owen, 40 Conn. App. 132, 138 , 669 A.2d 606 , cert. denied, 236 Conn. 912 , 673 A.2d 114 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 922 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996).

2014“To satisfy the availability requirement, the [party] must put forth sufficient evidence before the jury to support a conclusion that the witness was available at the time of trial.” State v. Owen, 40 Conn. App. 132, 138 , 669 A.2d 606 , cert. denied, 236 Conn. 912 , 673 A.2d 114 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 922 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996).

2014“To satisfy the availability requirement, the [party] must put forth sufficient evidence before the jury to support a conclusion that the witness was available at the time of trial.” State v. Owen, 40 Conn. App. 132, 138 , 669 A.2d 606 , cert. denied, 236 Conn. 912 , 673 A.2d 114 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 922 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996).

2014“To satisfy the availability requirement, the [party] must put forth sufficient evidence before the jury to support a conclusion that the witness was available at the time of trial.” State v. Owen, 40 Conn. App. 132, 138 , 669 A.2d 606 , cert. denied, 236 Conn. 912 , 673 A.2d 114 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 922 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996).

2014“To satisfy the availability requirement, the [party] must put forth sufficient evidence before the jury to support a conclusion that the witness was available at the time of trial.” State v. Owen, 40 Conn. App. 132, 138 , 669 A.2d 606 , cert. denied, 236 Conn. 912 , 673 A.2d 114 , cert. denied, 237 Conn. 922 , 676 A.2d 1376 (1996).

2007“The court . . . has a duty not to submit to the jury, in its charge, any issue upon which the evidence would not reasonably support a finding.” State v. Diggs, 219 Conn. 295, 299 , 592 A.2d 949 (1991); see State v. Williams, 202 Conn. 349, 364 , 521 A.2d 150 (1987).

2007“The court . . . has a duty not to submit to the jury, in its charge, any issue upon which the evidence would not reasonably support a finding.” State v. Diggs, 219 Conn. 295, 299 , 592 A.2d 949 (1991); see State v. Williams, 202 Conn. 349, 364 , 521 A.2d 150 (1987).

2006For example, the Michigan Supreme Court in Hyde v. University of Michigan Regents, 426 Mich. 223, 258 , 393 N.W.2d 847 (1986), observed: “If the availability of immunity turned solely upon an examination of the ledgers and budgets of a particular activity, a fiscally responsible governmental agency would be ‘rewarded’ with tort liability for its sound management decisions.

2006For example, the Michigan Supreme Court in Hyde v. University of Michigan Regents, 426 Mich. 223, 258 , 393 N.W.2d 847 (1986), observed: “If the availability of immunity turned solely upon an examination of the ledgers and budgets of a particular activity, a fiscally responsible governmental agency would be ‘rewarded’ with tort liability for its sound management decisions.

2003As long as this result is rational, “we may not judge the wisdom, desirability or logic of the legislative determi nation . . . .” Broadley v. Board of Education, 229 Conn. 1, 9 , 639 A.2d 502 (1994). 8 The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

2003As long as this result is rational, “we may not judge the wisdom, desirability or logic of the legislative determi nation . . . .” Broadley v. Board of Education, 229 Conn. 1, 9 , 639 A.2d 502 (1994). 8 The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.