State v. Wade
Citations
- 351 Conn. 745
Syllabus
In accordance with the Appellate Court's decision in State v. Crespo (190 Conn. App. 639), the due process right to confront adverse witnesses at a probation revocation hearing is not absolute but, rather, is determined by application of a balancing test, pursuant to which a court weighs the defen- dant's interest in confronting the witness against the state's reasons for not producing the witness and the reliability of the proffered evidence. The defendant appealed, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which had affirmed the trial court's judgment revok- ing his probation. The revocation of probation was based on allegations that the defendant had violated the conditions of his probation by participating in a home invasion, leaving the state without permission, and failing to submit to substance abuse evaluations and counseling. The defendant claimed that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that he or defense counsel had abandoned, at his probation revocation hearing, the defendant's request that the trial court apply a Crespo balancing before admitting an out-of-court identification by an unavailable witness, R, of the defendant as one of the individuals involved in the home invasion. Held: The Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the defendant or defense counsel effectively had abandoned the defendant's claim that the trial court should apply the balancing required by Crespo to vindicate his right to confront R, and, accordingly, the defendant was entitled to a new probation revocation hearing. The defendant properly raised his Crespo claim in the first instance in a prehearing motion, and neither the defendant nor his counsel expressly or impliedly abandoned that claim at the probation revocation hearing. 746 APRIL, 2025 351 Conn. 745 State v. Wade Defense counsel never indicated to the trial court that it did not need to balance the interests of the defendant and the state in determining whether to admit R's id
Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Dannehy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2004-03-08· cited 14,756×
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 10,835×
- Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court· 1973-05-14· cited 5,755×
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-03-21· cited 123×
- State v. FaradaySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-03-16· cited 119×
- United States v. Shauntel Martin, Also Known as BooEighth Circuit· 2004-09-10· cited 101×
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-11-25· cited 99×
- State v. HamptonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-09-15· cited 98×
- State v. OutingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-08-31· cited 60×
- State v. StricklandSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-12-02· cited 44×
- State v. CulbreathSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-08-18· cited 36×
- United States v. PegueroSecond Circuit· 2022-05-13· cited 30×
- State v. SHAKIRSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-09-20· cited 20×
- State v. PolancoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2016-06-29· cited 20×
- Hazel v. Comm'r of Corr.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-03-28· cited 20×
- State v. SHAKIRConnecticut Appellate Court· 2011-08-02· cited 15×
- State v. Ramon A. G.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-07-28· cited 15×
- State v. BlaineSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-03-28· cited 14×
- State v. PolancoConnecticut Appellate Court· 2016-05-17· cited 13×
- Barlow v. Comm'r of Corr.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-04-24· cited 12×
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.