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.
5 Connecticut opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schiappa v. Connecticutgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 141 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1999).’’ State v. Rodriguez, 146 Conn. App. 99, 109 , 75 A.3d 798 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 948 , 80 A.3d 906 (2013). 2019See State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 141 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1999).’’ State v. Rodriguez, 146 Conn. App. 99, 109 , 75 A.3d 798 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 948 , 80 A.3d 906 (2013). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Schiappagreen2 sentences2019See State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 141 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1999).’’ State v. Rodriguez, 146 Conn. App. 99, 109 , 75 A.3d 798 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 948 , 80 A.3d 906 (2013). 2019See State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 141 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1999).’’ State v. Rodriguez, 146 Conn. App. 99, 109 , 75 A.3d 798 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 948 , 80 A.3d 906 (2013). | 2 | 2 |
Lilly v. Virginiagreen2 sentences2022As the United States Supreme Court has explained, the exception ‘‘is founded on the commonsense notion that reasonable people, even reasonable people who are not especially honest, tend not to make self-inculpatory statements unless they believe them to be true.’’ Williamson v. United States, supra, 512 U.S. 599 ; see Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 , 126-27, 119 S. Ct. 1887 , 144 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1999) (‘‘[t]he exception . . . is founded on the broad assumption that a person is unlikely to fabricate a statement against his own interest at the time it is made’’ (internal quotation marks omitted) 2022As the United States Supreme Court has explained, the exception ‘‘is founded on the commonsense notion that reasonable people, even reasonable people who are not especially honest, tend not to make self-inculpatory statements unless they believe them to be true.’’ Williamson v. United States, supra, 512 U.S. 599 ; see Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 , 126-27, 119 S. Ct. 1887 , 144 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1999) (‘‘[t]he exception . . . is founded on the broad assumption that a person is unlikely to fabricate a statement against his own interest at the time it is made’’ (internal quotation marks omitted) | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2022See, e.g., State v. Bryant, 202 Conn. 676, 701 , 523 A.2d 451 (1987) (‘‘the ultimate question [under the statement against penal interest exception is] whether a reasonable man in [the declarant’s] position would not have made the statement[s] unless he believed [them] to be true’’ (internal quotation mark omitted)). 2022See, e.g., State v. Bryant, 202 Conn. 676, 701 , 523 A.2d 451 (1987) (‘‘the ultimate question [under the statement against penal interest exception is] whether a reasonable man in [the declarant’s] position would not have made the statement[s] unless he believed [them] to be true’’ (internal quotation mark omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 141 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1999).’’ State v. Rodriguez, 146 Conn. App. 99, 109 , 75 A.3d 798 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 948 , 80 A.3d 906 (2013). 2019See State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 141 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1999).’’ State v. Rodriguez, 146 Conn. App. 99, 109 , 75 A.3d 798 , cert. denied, 310 Conn. 948 , 80 A.3d 906 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fryegreen2 sentences2017See Conn. Code Evid. § 8-6, commentary ("[I]n State v. Frye , 182 Conn. 476 , 438 A.2d 735 (1980), the court adopted the federal rule's definition of unavailability for the statement against penal interest exception; id., at 481-82 , 438 A.2d 735 .... 2017See Conn. Code Evid. § 8-6, commentary ("[I]n State v. Frye , 182 Conn. 476 , 438 A.2d 735 (1980), the court adopted the federal rule's definition of unavailability for the statement against penal interest exception; id., at 481-82 , 438 A.2d 735 .... | 1 | 1 |
State v. Riveragreen2 sentences2017The court has yet to determine whether the definition of unavailability recognized in Frye applies to other hearsay exceptions requiring the unavailability of the declarant." [Citations omitted.] ); see also, e.g., State v. Rivera , supra, 221 Conn. at 61-62 and n.2, 602 A.2d 571 (explaining that proponent of former testimony must "make a good faith effort to procure the declarant's attendance," rather than "attendance [or testimony]," but distinction was immaterial because proponent was unable to locate witness for either purpose). 2017The court has yet to determine whether the definition of unavailability recognized in Frye applies to other hearsay exceptions requiring the unavailability of the declarant." [Citations omitted.] ); see also, e.g., State v. Rivera , supra, 221 Conn. at 61-62 and n.2, 602 A.2d 571 (explaining that proponent of former testimony must "make a good faith effort to procure the declarant's attendance," rather than "attendance [or testimony]," but distinction was immaterial because proponent was unable to locate witness for either purpose). | 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. Saucier
green
2 sentences2010Furthermore, "[w]hen viewing this issue through an evidentiary lens, we examine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 289 Conn. 598, 631 , 960 A.2d 993 (2008). [29] There is no dispute that Bryant's invocation of his privilege against self-incrimination renders him unavailable as a witness for purposes of the statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule. [30] The state nevertheless suggests that the trial court's ruling is not entitled to such deference, asserting that, under State v. Saucier, supra, 28 2010Furthermore, "[w]hen viewing this issue through an evidentiary lens, we examine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 289 Conn. 598, 631 , 960 A.2d 993 (2008). [29] There is no dispute that Bryant's invocation of his privilege against self-incrimination renders him unavailable as a witness for purposes of the statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule. [30] The state nevertheless suggests that the trial court's ruling is not entitled to such deference, asserting that, under State v. Saucier, supra, 28 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2010Furthermore, "[w]hen viewing this issue through an evidentiary lens, we examine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 289 Conn. 598, 631 , 960 A.2d 993 (2008). [29] There is no dispute that Bryant's invocation of his privilege against self-incrimination renders him unavailable as a witness for purposes of the statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule. [30] The state nevertheless suggests that the trial court's ruling is not entitled to such deference, asserting that, under State v. Saucier, supra, 28 2010Furthermore, "[w]hen viewing this issue through an evidentiary lens, we examine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Smith, 289 Conn. 598, 631 , 960 A.2d 993 (2008). [29] There is no dispute that Bryant's invocation of his privilege against self-incrimination renders him unavailable as a witness for purposes of the statement against penal interest exception to the hearsay rule. [30] The state nevertheless suggests that the trial court's ruling is not entitled to such deference, asserting that, under State v. Saucier, supra, 28 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.