State v. Cabral

33 Citing cases

  1. State v. Pagan

    158 Conn. App. 620 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cabral, 275 Conn. 514, 530–31, 881 A.2d 247, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1048, 126 S.Ct. 773, 163 L.Ed.2d 600 (2005),It is clear from the record that the defendant did not object to Micca's testimony on the grounds of relevance or lack of an adequate evidentiary foundation.

  2. State v. Qayyum

    344 Conn. 302 (Conn. 2022)   Cited 7 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cabral , 275 Conn. 514, 530–31, 881 A.2d 247, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1048, 126 S. Ct. 773, 163 L. Ed. 2d 600 (2005) ; accord State v. Gonzalez , 272 Conn. 515, 539, 864 A.2d 847 (2005). "These requirements are not simply formalities.

  3. State v. Fernando

    294 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2009)   Cited 85 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding similar provision regarding criminal order for protection

    Moreover, we disagree with Justice Palmer's reliance on case law concluding that evidentiary claims were not properly preserved. See State v. Cabral, 275 Conn. 514, 530-31, 881 A.2d 247, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1048, 126 S. Ct. 773, 163 L. Ed. 2d 600 (2005); State v. Meehan, 260 Conn. 372, 388-89, 796 A.2d 1191 (2002). Evidentiary rulings are subject to a preservation and briefing standard under Practice Book §§ 5-5 and 67-4 (d) (3) that reflects the discretionary nature of those decisions, as compared to questions of law such as that present in this case, which are subject to plenary review.

  4. Cabral v. Commissioner of Correction

    108 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    The petitioner brought a direct appeal to this court, and this court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. State v. Cabral, 75 Conn. App. 304, 815 A.2d 1234 (2003), rev'd, 275 Conn. 514, 881 A.2d 247, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1048, 126 S. Ct. 773, 163 L. Ed. 2d 600 (2005). After our Supreme Court granted the state's petition for certification to appeal, our Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court and upheld the judgment of conviction.

  5. Cabral v. Connecticut

    546 U.S. 1048 (2005)

    Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 275 Conn. 514, 881 A. 2d 247.

  6. State v. Patrick M.

    344 Conn. 565 (Conn. 2022)   Cited 10 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cabral , 275 Conn. 514, 523, 881 A.2d 247, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1048, 126 S. Ct. 773, 163 L. Ed. 2d 600 (2005). Use of a defendant's pre - Miranda silence, by contrast, does not raise the same constitutional concerns: "evidence of prearrest, and specifically pre- Miranda , silence is admissible to impeach the testimony of a defendant who testifies at trial, since the rule of Doyle v. Ohio , supra, [at 619, 96 S.Ct. 2240], is predicated on the defendant's reliance on the implicit promise of Miranda warnings."

  7. State v. Tyus

    342 Conn. 784 (Conn. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    Because those claims are not properly preserved, we decline to address them. See, e.g., State v. Cabral , 275 Conn. 514, 530–31, 881 A.2d 247 ("[t]he standard for the preservation of a claim alleging an improper evidentiary ruling at trial is well settled. This court is not bound to consider claims of law not made at the trial. ... In order to preserve an evidentiary ruling for review, trial counsel must object properly. ... In objecting to evidence, counsel must properly articulate the basis of the objection so as to apprise the trial court of the precise nature of the objection and its real purpose, in order to form an adequate basis for a reviewable ruling.

  8. State v. Lockhart

    298 Conn. 537 (Conn. 2010)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that testimony simply describing defendant's “arrogant” demeanor during interview was not a Doyle violation

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cabral, 275 Conn. 514, 523-24, 881 A.2d 247, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1048, 126 S. Ct. 773, 163 L. Ed. 2d 600 (2005).

  9. State v. Angel T

    292 Conn. 262 (Conn. 2009)   Cited 74 times
    Concluding that split verdict, rendered after report of deadlock “suggests that the jury had doubts concerning the victim's credibility as a general matter, as it failed to credit her testimony about the defendant's earlier attempts to molest”

    On appeal, the state claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's questioning, and his commentary during summations regarding the defendant's having retained counsel and his failure to meet with the police in connection with the case. Relying on, inter alia, State v. Cabral, 275 Conn. 514, 881 A.2d 247, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1048, 126 S. Ct. 773, 163 L. Ed. 2d 600 (2005), and State v. Alston, 272 Conn. 432, 862 A.2d 817 (2005), the state argues that this evidence properly demonstrates the "sequence of the events as they unfolded" in connection with the investigative efforts of the police. The state emphasizes further that its cross-examination of the defendant concerning his missed appointment with the police was permissible because the defendant testified at trial, which meant that, like any other witness, his credibility was subject to impeachment.

  10. State v. Johnson

    289 Conn. 437 (Conn. 2008)   Cited 34 times
    Finding evidence of murders cross admissible under DeJesus when defendant's semen was found in or on victims, victims died from blunt force trauma to head, and victims were found partially nude, their shirts pushed up, and their pants dangling from their left legs in publicly accessible but secluded places within one mile of each other

    "These requirements are not simply formalities. They serve to alert the trial court to potential error while there is still time for the court to act. . . . Assigning error to a court's evidentiary rulings on the basis of objections never raised at trial unfairly subjects the court and the opposing party to trial by ambush. . . . State v. Cabral, 275 Conn. 514, 530-31, 881 A.2d 247, cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1048, 126 S. Ct. 773, 163 L. Ed. 2d 600 (2005); id., 531 (declining to review claim that tape-recorded statements were inadmissible under coconspirator hearsay exception when objection at trial was on different ground that listener was acting as agent of police when statements were made); see also Practice Book § 5-5." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)