State v. Ferraiuolo

9 Citing cases

  1. State v. Ferraiuolo

    841 A.2d 220 (Conn. 2004)

    Decided January 22, 2004 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 80 Conn. App. 521 (AC 23973), is denied. Lisa J. Steele, special public defender, in support of the petition.

  2. State v. Williams

    47 A.3d 914 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    “Even photographs depicting gruesome scenes that may prejudice the jury are admissible, so long as, in the court's discretion, they are more probative than prejudicial.... There is no requirement in this state that a potentially inflammatory photograph be essential to the state's case in order for it to be admissible; rather, the test for determining the admissibility of the challenged evidence is relevancy and not necessity.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sanchez, 69 Conn.App. 576, 593, 795 A.2d 597 (2002); see also State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn.App. 521, 530–31, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 916, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). We conclude, therefore, that the court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the photograph into evidence.

  3. State v. Klinger

    103 Conn. App. 163 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 13 times
    In Klinger, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the condition of probation requiring him to repay a certain financial institution was improper.

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 529 n. 7, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 916, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). Our review of the record reveals that the defendant did not raise this claim before the trial court.

  4. State v. Cooke

    89 Conn. App. 530 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 14 times
    Describing threats used by gunmen to restrain robbery victims

    Our review of a trial court's evidentiary decisions is limited to whether the court abused its discretion. See State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 534-35, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 916, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). "Authentication is . . . a necessary preliminary to the introduction of most writings in evidence . . . .

  5. State v. Howard

    88 Conn. App. 404 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that court did not abuse discretion in admitting sixteen autopsy photographs of murder victims

    The court's decision to admit the photographs into evidence, however, did not amount to a clear abuse of discretion. Potentially inflammatory photographs may be admitted into evidence if the court, in its discretion, determines that the probative value of the photographs outweighs any potential prejudice. State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 527, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 916, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). "[E]ven photographs depicting gruesome scenes that may prejudice the jury are admissible, so long as, in the court's discretion, they are more probative than prejudicial."

  6. State v. Brisco

    84 Conn. App. 120 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 12 times
    Rejecting application of Rolon test because source of sexual knowledge not at issue

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 535, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 916, 841 A.2d 220 (2004); see also Conn. Code Evid. § 9-1. Here, the defendant did not provide substantial evidence to prove either that H wrote the note or when the note was written.

  7. State v. Daniels

    83 Conn. App. 210 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 12 times

    We review the court's admission of this evidence to determine whether it constituted a clear abuse of discretion. See State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 534, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 916, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). The following additional facts pertain to this claim.

  8. State v. Young

    81 Conn. App. 710 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 9 times

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Boretti v. Panacea Co., 67 Conn. App. 223, 227, 786 A.2d 1164 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 918, 791 A.2d 565 (2002); see also State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 534-35, 835 A.2d 1041 (2003). The defendant argues that the testimony regarding the shooting incident was inadmissible evidence of prior misconduct. "[A]s a general rule, evidence of prior misconduct is inadmissible to prove that a defendant is guilty of the crime of which he is accused."

  9. Doe v. Lasaga

    2004 Ct. Sup. 2873 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2004)

    " Id., § 4-3. In State v. Ferraiuolo, 80 Conn. App. 521, 527 (2003), the Appellate Court addressed the issue of disturbing photographic evidence, declaring that Connecticut courts have consistently held that photographic evidence is admissible where the photograph has a reasonable tendency to prove or disprove a material fact in issue or shed some light upon some material inquiry. The court also stated that there is no requirement that a potentially inflammatory photograph be essential to a case in order for it to be admissible. "[T]he test for determining the admissibility of the challenged evidence is relevancy and not necessity.