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 1991–2026 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. Goldinggreen2 sentences2026The defendant seeks review of this unpreserved state constitutional claim pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015). 2026The defendant seeks review of this unpreserved state constitutional claim pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Bensongreen2 sentences2026“Under Golding, a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original; inter 2026“Under Golding, a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis in original; inter | 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. Evans
green
2 sentences1994In State v. Barrett, [supra, 205 Conn. 437 ], our Supreme Court reviewed an unpreserved state constitutional claim, raised for the first time on remand from the United States Supreme Court, under the exceptional circumstances doctrine of State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973), which was later refined by State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 1994In State v. Barrett, [supra, 205 Conn. 437 ], our Supreme Court reviewed an unpreserved state constitutional claim, raised for the first time on remand from the United States Supreme Court, under the exceptional circumstances doctrine of State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973), which was later refined by State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). | 3 | 1991–1994 |
State v. Barrett
green
2 sentences1994In State v. Barrett, [supra, 205 Conn. 437 ], our Supreme Court reviewed an unpreserved state constitutional claim, raised for the first time on remand from the United States Supreme Court, under the exceptional circumstances doctrine of State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973), which was later refined by State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 1992In State v. Barrett, [ 205 Conn. 437 , 534 A.2d 219 (1987)], our Supreme Court reviewed an unpreserved state constitutional claim, raised for the first time on remand from the United States Supreme Court, under the exceptional circumstances doctrine of State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973), which was later refined by State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). | 2 | 1992–1994 |
State v. Dukes
green
2 sentences1994It would be illogical to afford Evans-Golding review to a defendant, as the one in Barrett , who completely failed to preserve his state constitutional claim at the trial court but to deny review to a defendant, such as the one in this case, who preserved it at trial but failed to set forth a separate argument for it in his initial brief to this court.” In State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 110 , 547 A.2d 10 (1988), we held that article first, § 7, of the constitution of Connecticut is enforced through an exclusionary rule, overruling prior precedent to the contrary, because the rule had become “wi 1994It would be illogical to afford Evans-Golding review to a defendant, as the one in Barrett , who completely failed to preserve his state constitutional claim at the trial court but to deny review to a defendant, such as the one in this case, who preserved it at trial but failed to set forth a separate argument for it in his initial brief to this court.” In State v. Dukes, 209 Conn. 98, 110 , 547 A.2d 10 (1988), we held that article first, § 7, of the constitution of Connecticut is enforced through an exclusionary rule, overruling prior precedent to the contrary, because the rule had become “wi | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Geisler
green
2 sentences1992It would be illogical to afford Evans-Golding review to a defendant, as the one in Barrett , who completely failed to preserve his state constitutional claim at the trial court but to deny review to a defendant, such as the one in this case, who preserved it at trial but failed to set forth a separate argument for it in his initial brief to this court.” State v. Geisler, 25 Conn. App. 282 , 284 n.2, 594 A.2d 985 (1991). 1992It would be illogical to afford Evans-Golding review to a defendant, as the one in Barrett , who completely failed to preserve his state constitutional claim at the trial court but to deny review to a defendant, such as the one in this case, who preserved it at trial but failed to set forth a separate argument for it in his initial brief to this court.” State v. Geisler, 25 Conn. App. 282 , 284 n.2, 594 A.2d 985 (1991). | 1 | 1992–1992 |