state not violated rule (Connecticut) · Go Syfert
← Connecticut issues

state not violated rule in Connecticut

5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 1989–1995 0 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
United States v. Arthur Sommergreen
ca2 · 1987 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
1 sentence

1989Gonzales II, supra, 119; see also United States v. Sommer, supra, 117 (issue is whether nonproduction undermines confidence in the outcome).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Belle green
conn · 1990
2 sentences

1995Where . . . the destruction of a witness’ statement, although not in bad faith, is deliberate, the state properly bears the burden of establishing harmlessness. . . . [T]he proper harmless error inquiry is whether the result of the trial may have been different had the state not violated the rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Belle, 215 Conn. 257, 268 , 576 A.2d 139 (1990).

1995Where . . . the destruction of a witness’ statement, although not in bad faith, is deliberate, the state properly bears the burden of establishing harmlessness. . . . [T]he proper harmless error inquiry is whether the result of the trial may have been different had the state not violated the rule.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Belle, 215 Conn. 257, 268 , 576 A.2d 139 (1990).

21991–1995
State v. Williamson green
conn · 1989
2 sentences

1995The state’s failure to provide material to which a defendant is entitled under Practice Book § 752 may “adversely affect a defendant’s ability to cross-examine . . . witnesses and thereby infringe upon his constitutional right of confrontation.” State v. Williamson, 212 Conn. 6, 20 , 562 A.2d 470 (1989).

1995The state’s failure to provide material to which a defendant is entitled under Practice Book § 752 may “adversely affect a defendant’s ability to cross-examine . . . witnesses and thereby infringe upon his constitutional right of confrontation.” State v. Williamson, 212 Conn. 6, 20 , 562 A.2d 470 (1989).

11995–1995
State v. Johnson green
conn · 1990
1 sentence

1992State v. Belle, supra, 268-69 n.11; State v. Johnson, supra, 172 ; State v. Williamson, supra, 18 . “[T]he proper harmless error inquiry is whether the result of the trial may have been different had the state not violated the rule.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Belle, supra, 268 .

11992–1992
State v. Dedrick neutral
connappct · 1991
2 sentences

1991Where . . . the destruction of a witness’ statement, although not in bad faith, is deliberate, the state properly bears the burden of establishing harmlessness. . . . “[T]he proper harmless error inquiry is whether the result of the trial may have been different had the state not violated the rule.” . . .’ ” (Citations omitted.) State v. Belle, supra; State v. Dedrick, 24 Conn. App. 518 , 589 A.2d 1241 (1991).

1991Where . . . the destruction of a witness’ statement, although not in bad faith, is deliberate, the state properly bears the burden of establishing harmlessness. . . . “[T]he proper harmless error inquiry is whether the result of the trial may have been different had the state not violated the rule.” . . .’ ” (Citations omitted.) State v. Belle, supra; State v. Dedrick, 24 Conn. App. 518 , 589 A.2d 1241 (1991).

11991–1991

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 18u.s.c.3500 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check