State v. Hargett
Citations
- 343 Conn. 604
Syllabus
Convicted of the crime of murder in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed. The victim had approached the defendant's home, where the defendant and three other individuals, including M, were talking on the porch. The victim abruptly took a soda bottle from the porch and immediately left the area without any confrontation. After the victim left, M and two others left the porch and began walking toward M's home, in the direction that the victim was headed. Meanwhile, the defendant went into his home, retrieved a rifle, and then caught up with M and the others. Near M's home, the victim regard, we previously have explained that such evidence is admissible only if (1) it is relevant and material to at least one of the circumstances encom- passed by the exceptions enumerated under § 4-5 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, and (2) its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect; see State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418, 440, 953 A.2d 45 (2008); and we also have required that the admission of such evidence be accompanied by an appropriate cautionary instruction to the jury to minimize the risk of undue prejudice to the defendant. See, e.g., State v. Snelgrove, 288 Conn. 742, 759, 954 A.2d 165 (2008); see also Conn. Code Evid. § 4-5 (b), commentary. We have done so because of the inherent risk of prejudice involved in the admission of this type of evidence. See, e.g., State v. Braman, 191 Conn. 670, 675, 469 A.2d 760 (1983) (''As a general rule, evidence of guilt of other crimes is inadmissible to prove that a defendant is guilty of the crime charged against him. . . . The rationale of this rule is to guard against its use merely to show an evil disposition of an accused, and especially the predisposition to commit the crime with which he is now charged.'' (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)); see also State v. Santiago, 224 Conn. 325, 347, 618 A.2d 32 (1992) (Berdon, J., concurring and dissenting) (''When the sole purpo
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- indicating that late disclosure implicates ‘‘funda- mental protections of due process’’ and emphasizing that ‘‘the state has a duty to defendants, to the public, and to the courts to act with diligence in the disclosure of evidence’’
- state actors lacked due diligence when prosecutor was unaware of murder weapon discovered later in unrelated case handled by same state’s attor- ney’s office
- ‘‘light most favorable’’ analysis requires ‘‘drawing all reasonably permissible inferences in [the defendant’s] favor’’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court· 1972-06-22· cited 12,108×
- State v. DeJesusSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-08-19· cited 196×
- State v. TroupeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-06-11· cited 159×
- State v. LewisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-12-17· cited 107×
- State v. BramanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1983-12-27· cited 106×
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-04-13· cited 101×
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-11-25· cited 99×
- State v. SantiagoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-12-29· cited 98×
- State v. LewisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-08-04· cited 93×
- State v. FestoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-06-24· cited 76×
- State v. L'HEUREUXSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1974-05-07· cited 64×
- State v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of Washington· 2009-03-24· cited 47×
- State v. OsimantiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-11-09· cited 35×
- State v. CarterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-04-04· cited 34×
- State v. SnelgroveSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-09-16· cited 32×
- State v. JacksonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-03-03· cited 22×
- State v. LacksConnecticut Appellate Court· 2000-06-27· cited 22×
- Halladay v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-08-05· cited 15×
- Jimenez v. Hon. chavez/stateCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2014-04-22· cited 14×
- State v. EricksonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-06-29· cited 13×
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.