State v. James K.
Citations
- 209 Conn. App. 441
Syllabus
Convicted of the crime of risk of injury to a child as a result of certain physical contact with his minor daughter, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court violated his right to be tried before an impartial jury when it prohibited his counsel from asking prospective jurors during voir dire to express their opinions with respect to parents who kiss their children on the lips. When the state indicated it would seek to introduce into evidence a photograph of the defendant kissing the victim's half sister on the lips, defense counsel objected. The trial court first precluded defense counsel from asking prospective jurors about kissing on the lips because it was too specific to the facts of the case and limited defense counsel to asking prospective jurors about whether parents can have different methods of showing physical affection to their children. Thereafter, the court ruled the photo- graph inadmissible because it was prejudicial to the defendant. The defendant also had been charged with two counts of sexual assault in the first degree in connection with the incident with the victim. Although the jury initially had been unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to all three charges, the trial court delivered a ''Chip Smith'' instruction urging the jury to reach a verdict, after which it returned its verdict, which included a finding of not guilty as to the sexual assault charges. Held: 1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it prohibited defense counsel from asking prospective jurors to express their opinions with respect to parents who kiss their children on the lips: contrary to the defendant's assertion that the court improperly limited the scope of his voir dire because that issue was a central issue in the case and many people view it as inappropriate and offensive, the court's extremely narrow ruling was limited only to that question, it prevented counsel from improperly using voir dire to ascertain prospect
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘the burden rests with the appellant to demon- strate reversible error’’ (internal quotation marks omit- ted)
- ‘‘In Connecticut, our appellate courts do not presume error on the part of the trial court. . . . Rather, the burden rests with the appellant to demonstrate reversible error.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Prescott; Moll; Suarez
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. James K.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-08-29· cited 13×
- United Cleaning & Restoration, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2024-05-28· cited 4×
- Moon v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court· 2024-09-10· cited 2×
- Lisboa v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court· 2025-10-28· cited 2×
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. DuranteConnecticut Appellate Court· 2024-08-27
- State v. VickersConnecticut Appellate Court· 2024-10-29
- State v. GarrisonConnecticut Appellate Court· 2025-02-25
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Yuen v. Internal Revenue ServiceSupreme Court· 1981-11-16· cited 129×
- State v. StankowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1981-05-12· cited 119×
- State v. PollittSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-08-25· cited 108×
- State v. RallsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1974-12-31· cited 94×
- State v. MartinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-12· cited 86×
- State v. BretonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-08-22· cited 81×
- State v. RutanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-09-04· cited 64×
- State v. GouldSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-05-20· cited 58×
- State v. LeeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-03-16· cited 57×
- State v. DolphinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-05-19· cited 56×
- State v. PearySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1978-09-26· cited 45×
- State v. O'NeilSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-07-23· cited 43×
- State v. CECIL J.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-06-02· cited 42×
- Waller v. GravesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1850-07-15· cited 42×
- State v. DahlgrenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-07-22· cited 41×
- State v. ParrisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-06-18· cited 39×
- State v. FelicianoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-06-19· cited 31×
- State v. LugoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-12-09· cited 25×
- State v. RogersSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-09-03· cited 24×
- State v. SpykeConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-01-25· cited 23×
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.