Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 01 — PROVISIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION · Chapter 2 — Legal Holidays and Standard of Time
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-5 (2026)

Independence Day celebration

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
As a part of the official observance of Independence Day, appropriate ceremonies shall be held in the hall of flags of the State Capitol on July fourth in each year. The Governor shall issue a proclamation recalling to the citizens of the state the historic significance of Independence Day. The Governor shall designate a state official of a patriotic society or a state official of a veterans organization to plan and have charge of such ceremonies, in such manner that the conduct of such ceremonies shall be alternated from year to year between an official of a patriotic society and an official of a veterans organization. The necessary expense of such ceremony, not exceeding seven hundred and fifty dollars each year, shall be paid to the society or organization conducting the ceremonies.

(1949 Rev., S. 8881; 1949, S. 3355d; 1963, P.A. 287.)

History: 1963 act added requirement of governor's proclamation.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1963–2022 · leading case: State v. Norman P., 186 A.3d 1143 (Conn. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Norman P., 186 A.3d 1143 (Conn. 2018). · cites it 38× “The state additionally challenges the Appellate Court's conclusion that, in declining to admit into evidence the defendant's entire written statement to the police, the trial court misinterpreted § 1-5 (b) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence and our relevant case law applying…”
State v. Norman P., 151 A.3d 877 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 14× “Specifically, the defendant argues that the court misinterpreted § 1-5 (b) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence and that, pursuant to § 1-5 (b), the entire statement should have been admitted in order for the jury to understand the context of those portions that were previously…”
State v. Lockhart, 69 A.L.R. 6th 793 (Conn. 2010). · cites it 4× “The defendant argued that the state, by failing to record the defendant’s statement and introducing only portions of the statement, precluded him from offering additional portions of that statement pursuant to § 1-5 (b) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, 5 without waiving his…”
Cousins v. Nelson, 866 A.2d 620 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 12× “2 The plaintiff claims that the cited article should have been admitted pursuant to the rule of completeness, as codified in § 1-5 (b) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, 3 or to counteract the defendant’s alleged surprise tactics 4 or to test the credibility of the defendants’…”
State v. Reese, 822 A.2d 348 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 3× “Objecting to the redaction, the defendant sought to introduce two of the redacted paragraphs in the statement pursuant to Connecticut Code of Evidence § 1-5. 6 They stated as follows: 7 “I know in my heart that Reggie was not the one who shot the ‘boy’ because he would have told…”
State v. Manuel T., 254 A.3d 278 (Conn. 2020). “§ 1-5; that serves different concerns from those of authentication.”
State v. Efrain M., 899 A.2d 50 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 4× “The court ultimately allowed submission of the entire videotape pursuant to §§ 1-5 and 6-11, accompanied by a limiting instruction to lessen any potential prejudice.”
Advanced Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Associated Appraisal Servs., Inc., 830 A.2d 240 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). “That section provides that “[w]hen a statement is introduced by a party, the court may, and upon request shall, require the proponent at that time to introduce any other part of the statement, whether or not otherwise admissible, that the court determines, considering the…”
State v. Jackson, 777 A.2d 591 (Conn. 2001). “§ 1-5 (b). We note that the defendant’s claim is essentially a challenge to an evidentiary ruling of the trial court.”
State v. Burgos-Torres, 968 A.2d 476 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “” Despite the time honored rule that only full exhibits go to the jury, 2 the defendant argues that “[u]nder the rule of completeness, pursuant to Connecticut Code of Evidence § 1-5, 3 *119 whether or not the statements were otherwise admissible, the court had the discretion to…”
State v. Vasquez, 792 A.2d 856 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). “When a statement is introduced by a party, the court may, and upon request shall, require the proponent at that time to introduce any other part of the statement, whether or not otherwise admissible, that the court determines, considering the context of the first part of the…”
Cabral v. Comm'r of Corr., 946 A.2d 1278 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 3× “Even if we assume that Levarge was not a coconspirator at the time the tape recording was made and that his statements were not otherwise admissible, his statements during the taped two party telephone conversation were nonetheless admissible, as the state argues, because they…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.