Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited 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.

Other cases with this name

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.