Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 04 — MANAGEMENT OF STATE AGENCIES · Chapter 46 — State Appointive Officers
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-3 (2026)

Term of office of legislative appointees

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The term of office of each officer appointed by the General Assembly or Senate, unless otherwise specially provided by law, shall commence on the first day of July following his appointment.

(1949 Rev., S. 50.)

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 181 cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: State v. Collins, 10 A.3d 1005 (Conn. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Collins, 10 A.3d 1005 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 20× “§ 4-3; [8] and overruled the defendant's objection.”
State v. Sandoval, 821 A.2d 247 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 6× “The court further concluded that, under Connecticut Code of Evidence § 4-3, 34 any possible probative value of the evidence was outweighed by “the danger of unfair prejudice, surprise, confusion of the *541 issues, misleading of the juiy or [by] considerations of undue delay,…”
Hayes v. Camel, 927 A.2d 880 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 5× “The plaintiff contends that this evidence was irrelevant with regard to the medical malpractice claim, and that, even if relevant, the evidence was inadmissible under § 4-3 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence 8 because its confusing and prejudicial effects exceeded its probative…”
State v. Colon, 864 A.2d 666 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 4-3. We conclude that the trial court properly determined that the probative value of Kanfer’s testimony regarding the severity of the victim’s injuries was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.”
State v. James K., 347 Conn. 648 (Conn. 2023). · cites it 4× “Our standard of review for evidentiary claims is well settled. ‘‘Relevant evidence may be excluded if its pro- bative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair preju- dice .”
State v. Sawyer, 904 A.2d 101 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 4-3.” State v. Merriam, supra, 264 Conn.”
Considine v. City of Waterbury, 905 A.2d 70 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 2× “§ 4-3; see also State v. Paulino, 223 Conn.”
Viera v. Cohen, 927 A.2d 843 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 4-3."). Moreover, the trial court expressly instructed the jury that informed consent was not at issue in the case.”
Travelers Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Christie, 916 A.2d 114 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 4× “The trial court in that case did not balance the probativeness of the evidence against unfair prejudice or other exclusionary factors subsequently described in § 4-3 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.”
State v. Allen, 958 A.2d 1214 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 4-3. A determination regarding undue prejudice is a highly fact and context-specific inquiry.”
State v. Trotter, 793 A.2d 1172 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 3× “§ 4-2. “Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or surprise, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
State v. Aaron L., 865 A.2d 1135 (Conn. 2005). · cites it 2× “nates not from a requirement of a preliminary finding of fact by the trial court, but from four other sources: first, from the requirement under § 4-5 (b) that the evidence satisfy one of the prior misconduct exceptions and, thus, be offered for a proper purpose; second, from…”
Show all 181 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.