State v. Calhoun
Citations
- 346 Conn. 288
Syllabus
Convicted of murder in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant had been arrested several years after the shooting, after two individuals, C and K, came forward and claimed to have witnessed the defendant shoot the victim. At trial, the state's case rested almost entirely on the testimony of C and K, who were incarcerated both at the time of trial and when they first approached the police with information about the shooting. The trial court admitted into evidence the entirety of the cooperation agree- ments that C and K had with the state, and the prosecutor used those agreements to rehabilitate C and K during their respective direct exami- nations, before either witness had been impeached. Defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined C and K, including about their cooperation agreements, but the trial court precluded defense counsel from ques- tioning K about certain details of a prior arrest, which occurred after K testified before the grand jury in the present case and while he was released on parole. The trial court also declined defense counsel's request for a jailhouse informant instruction with respect to C and K and, instead, gave the jury a special credibility instruction in which it noted that C and K had entered into cooperation agreements and urged the jury to examine their testimony with ''careful scrutiny'' and ''particu- lar care . . . .'' On the defendant's appeal from the judgment of convic- tion, held: 1. The trial court gave an adequate special credibility instruction and did not abuse its discretion in declining to give the requested jailhouse informant instruction: Although the trial court's instruction was not in the exact form of the requested jailhouse informant instruction, the substance of the requested instruction was very similar to the instruction that the jury was given, the jury having been cautioned that C and K were receiving benefits from the state in return for testifying, t
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that probative value of gratuitous references to witness’ obligation under agreement to tell truth are ‘‘negligible and outweighed by their prejudicial effect’’
- ‘‘[j]ury instructions are not ‘one size fits all formulations,’ which is why trial courts must sometimes modify jury instructions to meet the needs of a case’’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. ColonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-12-28· cited 228×
- Miller-Bates v. Wachovia BankSupreme Court· 2005-10-03· cited 207×
- United States v. Millard BowieTenth Circuit· 1990-01-08· cited 190×
- State v. PinnockSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-01-14· cited 150×
- State v. PattersonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-12-20· cited 95×
- United States v. Certified Environmental Services, Inc.Second Circuit· 2014-05-28· cited 76×
- Vogel v. SylvesterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1961-08-01· cited 75×
- State v. DehaneySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-08-13· cited 52×
- Chavez-Miranda v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2003-02-24· cited 44×
- United States v. Carlos Benitez-MerazEighth Circuit· 1998-12-07· cited 37×
- State v. MoyeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-02-27· cited 28×
- United States v. RoundtreeEighth Circuit· 2008-07-24· cited 25×
- State v. BrunySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-02-07· cited 22×
- State v. OrtizSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-06-14· cited 22×
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-12-01· cited 15×
- State v. FloresSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-09-20· cited 9×
- State v. Elias G.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-08-09· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.