Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 900 — Court Practice and Procedure
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-216c (2026)

Failure to call a witness. Jury instruction prohibited; argument by counsel permitted

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No court in the trial of a civil action may instruct the jury that an inference unfavorable to any party's cause may be drawn from the failure of any party to call a witness at such trial. However, counsel for any party to the action shall be entitled to argue to the trier of fact during closing arguments, except where prohibited by section 52-174, that the jury should draw an adverse inference from another party's failure to call a witness who has been proven to be available to testify.

(P.A. 98-50.)

Legislature intended not only that there be advance notice of counsel's intent to invite jury to draw an adverse inference from a party's failure to call a witness, but also that there be an advance ruling by trial judge that counsel has provided some evidentiary basis entitling him or her to do so. 72 CA 359. Defendant was properly permitted to present in closing argument that the jury could draw an adverse inference from plaintiff's decision not to call his wife as a witness. 123 CA 555. Trial court properly cautioned defendants' counsel from making further comment on plaintiffs' decision not to call a witness to testify because counsel had not established the witness's availability or informed the court he would be making an argument that the jury should draw an adverse inference from plaintiffs' failure to produce the witness. 156 CA 453.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: Raybeck v. Danbury Orthopedic Assocs., P.C., 805 A.2d 130 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Raybeck v. Danbury Orthopedic Assocs., P.C., 805 A.2d 130 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 17× “She contends that because no notice was provided here, the argument was improper and the court should have given a curative instruction.”
In re Samantha C., 847 A.2d 883 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 8× “That instruction, known as a Secondino charge, 21 is now, for various policy reasons, prohibited by statute in civil cases; General Statutes § 52-216c; 22 and by our precedent in criminal cases.”
Rogan v. Rungee, 140 A.3d 979 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 11× “" Furthermore, the court drew an adverse inference against the plaintiff for not testifying at trial, although he was present, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-216c. 6 We first set forth the applicable standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State v. Malave, 737 A.2d 442 (Conn. 1999). · cites it 4× “98-50), codified at General Statutes § 52-216c; see footnote 7 of this opinion.”
Jones v. Dept. of Child. & Families, 158 A.3d 356 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 52-216c prohibits a fact finder from drawing an adverse inference on the basis of a party's failure to call a witness unless the party satisfies certain criteria.”
Harlan v. Norwalk Anesthesiology, P.C., 816 A.2d 719 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff further claims that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her permission to argue, in her closing argument, that the jury should draw an adverse inference from the defendants’ failure to call certain witnesses to testify.”
Watson Real Est., LLC v. Woodland Ridge, LLC, 202 A.3d 1033 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 3× “is now, for various policy reasons, prohibited by statute in civil cases; General Statutes § 52-216c ; and by [Supreme Court] precedent in criminal cases.”
LM Ins. Corp. v. Connecticut Dismanteling, LLC, 161 A.3d 562 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 8× “" The defendant then argued that the policy underlying General Statutes § 52-216c applied to the present case.”
Caprood v. Atlanta Cas. Co., 835 A.2d 74 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 6× “These were the three passengers in the plaintiffs car and the two people who were identified in the police report as having been at the scene of the collision.”
Boretti v. Panacea Co., 786 A.2d 1164 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “98-50, now codified at General Statutes § 52-216c, the jury should draw an adverse inference from the failure of the defendants to call witnesses to testify about the maintenance of the property.”
In re Antonio M., 744 A.2d 915 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “98-50, codified as General Statutes § 52-216c. Section 17a-112 was amended by Public Acts 1998, No.”
Cafro v. Brophy, 774 A.2d 206 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “Although we ordered supplemental briefing on claim X (C), we conclude that no review is necessary.”
Show all 26 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.