State v. CECIL J.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that it was \incumbent\ on defendant to object to trial court's redactions at trial
• explaining that, in Rolon, this court adopted test that defendant must satisfy “in order for evidence of a victim’s prior sexual conduct to be admissible under § 54-86f to show a source for the victim’s sexual knowledge”
• \[a] clear statement of the defendant's theory of relevance is all important in determining whether the evidence is offered for a permissible purpose\
• “[a] clear statement of the defendant’s theory of relevance is all important in determining whether the evidence is offered for a permissible purpose”
• in absence of contrary evidence, \we must presume that the trial court applied the proper legal standard\
• ‘‘in [the] absence of contrary evidence, we presume that the trial court . . . undertook the proper analysis of the law and the facts’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).