State v. Streit
Citations
- 341 Conn. 170
Syllabus
Convicted of manslaughter in the first degree in connection with the stabbing death of the victim, the defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion by precluding him from introducing evidence, in support of his self-defense claim, that the victim had searched a retail website for weapons in the days preceding the stabbing. The defendant and the victim had been involved in two fights the week before the stabbing, and, after each altercation, the victim threatened to kill the defendant. The stabbing at issue occurred a few days later, after the victim approached the defendant. The defendant filed a motion in limine, seeking to introduce into evidence a forensic analysis of data extracted from the victim's cell phone showing that the phone had been used to conduct certain online searches for weapons between the first fight and the stabbing. The court denied the motion in limine, concluding that, because there was no evidence that the victim had purchased any of the items he searched for or that the defendant was aware of the victim's search activity at the time of the stabbing, the search history was not relevant to prove the defendant's state of mind with respect to whether his fear of the victim was subjectively and objectively reasonable under the provisions (§ 4-4 (a) (2) and (b)) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence permitting an accused in a homicide case to introduce evidence of the victim's violent character under certain circumstances. The court further concluded that the search history was not admissible to prove that the victim was the initial aggressor because the victim's act of searching for weapons did not result in a criminal conviction. On the defendant's 341 Conn. 170 FEBRUARY, 2022 171 State v. Streit appeal from the judgment of conviction, held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion seeking to introduce evidence of the victim's online searches for weapons: a defen- dant in a homi
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. DeJesusSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-08-19· cited 196×
- State v. SaucierSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-07-17· cited 151×
- Grumman Aerospace Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1991-10-15· cited 149×
- State v. MooneySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1991-03-19· cited 145×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Kansas· 2016-01-08· cited 113×
- State v. CarterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-02-01· cited 69×
- Howard v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1992-10-19· cited 67×
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-05-05· cited 66×
- State v. WhitfordSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-07-02· cited 59×
- State v. MirandaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1978-09-12· cited 53×
- State v. OsimantiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-11-09· cited 35×
- State v. BestSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-10-14· cited 30×
- State v. RaynorSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-12-04· cited 27×
- State v. KnightonConnecticut Appellate Court· 1986-04-29· cited 27×
- Troy D. Richardson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2014-08-28· cited 21×
- Commonwealth v. CareyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2012-09-07· cited 21×
- McMaster v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2018-02-20· cited 15×
- State v. JordanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-06-19· cited 14×
- State v. CollinsConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-04-02· cited 13×
- State v. CarterConnecticut Appellate Court· 1998-05-26· cited 10×
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.