instructions standard in Connecticut

2009If not, were the court’s instructions on this defense inadequate?” State v. Terwilliger, 286 Conn. 902 , 943 A.2d 1103 (2008).

2009If not, were the court’s instructions on this defense inadequate?” State v. Terwilliger, 286 Conn. 902 , 943 A.2d 1103 (2008).

1999The state argues that “the defendant’s claim is in the nature of an exception or an exemption, and the trial court correctly placed the burden on the defendant to prove his defense by a preponderance of the evidence.” In support of this argument, the state contends that “[i]t is the general rule that where exceptions to a prohibition in a criminal statute are situated separately from the enacting clause, the exceptions are to be proven by the defense.” State v. Tinsley, 181 Conn. 388, 402 , 435 A.2d 1002 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1086 , 101 S. Ct. 874 , 66 L.

1999The state argues that “the defendant’s claim is in the nature of an exception or an exemption, and the trial court correctly placed the burden on the defendant to prove his defense by a preponderance of the evidence.” In support of this argument, the state contends that “[i]t is the general rule that where exceptions to a prohibition in a criminal statute are situated separately from the enacting clause, the exceptions are to be proven by the defense.” State v. Tinsley, 181 Conn. 388, 402 , 435 A.2d 1002 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1086 , 101 S. Ct. 874 , 66 L.

1999The state argues that “the defendant’s claim is in the nature of an exception or an exemption, and the trial court correctly placed the burden on the defendant to prove his defense by a preponderance of the evidence.” In support of this argument, the state contends that “[i]t is the general rule that where exceptions to a prohibition in a criminal statute are situated separately from the enacting clause, the exceptions are to be proven by the defense.” State v. Tinsley, 181 Conn. 388, 402 , 435 A.2d 1002 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1086 , 101 S. Ct. 874 , 66 L.

1999The state argues that “the defendant’s claim is in the nature of an exception or an exemption, and the trial court correctly placed the burden on the defendant to prove his defense by a preponderance of the evidence.” In support of this argument, the state contends that “[i]t is the general rule that where exceptions to a prohibition in a criminal statute are situated separately from the enacting clause, the exceptions are to be proven by the defense.” State v. Tinsley, 181 Conn. 388, 402 , 435 A.2d 1002 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1086 , 101 S. Ct. 874 , 66 L.

1999The state argues that “the defendant’s claim is in the nature of an exception or an exemption, and the trial court correctly placed the burden on the defendant to prove his defense by a preponderance of the evidence.” In support of this argument, the state contends that “[i]t is the general rule that where exceptions to a prohibition in a criminal statute are situated separately from the enacting clause, the exceptions are to be proven by the defense.” State v. Tinsley, 181 Conn. 388, 402 , 435 A.2d 1002 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1086 , 101 S. Ct. 874 , 66 L.

1990In the present case, “the evidence against the accused is so overwhelming that we can conclude as a matter of law that the jury’s verdict was not influenced by the absence of a [Whelan] instruction”; State v. Cohane, 193 Conn. 474, 485 , 479 A.2d 763 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 990 , 105 S. Ct. 397 , 83 L.

1990In the present case, “the evidence against the accused is so overwhelming that we can conclude as a matter of law that the jury’s verdict was not influenced by the absence of a [Whelan] instruction”; State v. Cohane, 193 Conn. 474, 485 , 479 A.2d 763 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 990 , 105 S. Ct. 397 , 83 L.

1990In the present case, “the evidence against the accused is so overwhelming that we can conclude as a matter of law that the jury’s verdict was not influenced by the absence of a [Whelan] instruction”; State v. Cohane, 193 Conn. 474, 485 , 479 A.2d 763 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 990 , 105 S. Ct. 397 , 83 L.

1990In the present case, “the evidence against the accused is so overwhelming that we can conclude as a matter of law that the jury’s verdict was not influenced by the absence of a [Whelan] instruction”; State v. Cohane, 193 Conn. 474, 485 , 479 A.2d 763 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 990 , 105 S. Ct. 397 , 83 L.

1990In the present case, “the evidence against the accused is so overwhelming that we can conclude as a matter of law that the jury’s verdict was not influenced by the absence of a [Whelan] instruction”; State v. Cohane, 193 Conn. 474, 485 , 479 A.2d 763 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 990 , 105 S. Ct. 397 , 83 L.

1983Where the defendant’s contention is that the instructions on this standard diluted or impaired the constitutional requirement of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that contention must be examined “with the greatest care and concern.” United States v. Pine, supra. Long ago, the United States Supreme Court said: “Attempts to explain the term ‘reasonable doubt’ do not usually result in making it any clearer to the minds of the jury.” Miles v. United States, 103 U.S. 304, 312 , 26 L.

1983Where the defendant’s contention is that the instructions on this standard diluted or impaired the constitutional requirement of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that contention must be examined “with the greatest care and concern.” United States v. Pine, supra. Long ago, the United States Supreme Court said: “Attempts to explain the term ‘reasonable doubt’ do not usually result in making it any clearer to the minds of the jury.” Miles v. United States, 103 U.S. 304, 312 , 26 L.

1983Where the defendant’s contention is that the instructions on this standard diluted or impaired the constitutional requirement of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that contention must be examined “with the greatest care and concern.” United States v. Pine, supra. Long ago, the United States Supreme Court said: “Attempts to explain the term ‘reasonable doubt’ do not usually result in making it any clearer to the minds of the jury.” Miles v. United States, 103 U.S. 304, 312 , 26 L.