State v. Robert B.
Citations
- 200 Conn. App. 637
Syllabus
Convicted of the crimes of unlawful restraint in the first degree and breach of the peace in the second degree in connection with an incident involv- ing his former wife, T, and their two sons, the defendant appealed to this court. He claimed that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial and that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on a certain lesser included offense. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that his rights to due process and a fair trial were violated when T testified on cross-examination as to his prior bad acts and arrests, his claim being unpreserved and not of constitutional magnitude: the claim was not reviewable because the defendant failed to preserve it at trial by either moving to strike the testimony at issue or seeking a curative instruction; moreover, the defen- dant's claim was not of constitutional magnitude, and, therefore, not reviewable under the second prong of State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233), the admission of evidence of a defendant's other crimes being controlled by the law of evidence, not principles of constitutional law. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that he was denied a fair trial due to prosecutorial impropriety in that one of the two prosecutors who represented the state objected during his cross-examination of a witness despite not having conducted the direct examination of that witness, the claimed error having not constituted prosecutorial impropri- ety; our rule of practice (§ 5-4), on which the defendant based his claim, concerns the examination or cross-examination of a single witness by counsel for one party, and there is nothing explicit in the rule regarding whether one counsel alone is required to object to opposing counsel's examination of a witness. 3. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of unlawful restraint in the second degree, his claim being unprese
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- defendant waived claim of instructional error when he failed to submit request to charge, to ask court to include instruction at issue after he had reviewed court’s proposed charge, or to take exception to charge as given
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lavine; Prescott; Moll
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-07-28· cited 498×
- State v. KitchensSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-01-05· cited 242×
- State v. WhistnantSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-02-12· cited 230×
- State v. TaltonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-08-27· cited 140×
- State v. WhitfordSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-07-02· cited 59×
- State v. HolleySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-01-12· cited 51×
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-08-15· cited 51×
- State v. NashSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-06-20· cited 43×
- State v. BermudezConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-02-18· cited 8×
- State v. BoykinConnecticut Appellate Court· 2003-01-28· cited 8×
- State v. RuddConnecticut Appellate Court· 2001-04-10· cited 7×
- State v. PernellConnecticut Appellate Court· 2019-11-19· cited 3×
- State v. GardnerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-06-22· cited 2×
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.