Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

State v. Gainey

76 Conn. App. 155 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Gainey

10 Citing cases

  1. State v. Alvarez

    209 Conn. App. 250 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gainey , 76 Conn. App. 155, 158, 818 A.2d 859 (2003).

  2. State v. Johnson

    137 Conn. App. 733 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 17 times
    Applying vacatur approach pursuant to Rutledge

    Our standard of review in determining whether a court properly conducted an in camera review of confidential records is abuse of discretion. See State v. Gainey, 76 Conn.App. 155, 158, 818 A.2d 859 (2003); State v. Walsh, 52 Conn.App. 708, 722, 728 A.2d 15, cert. denied, 249 Conn. 911, 733 A.2d 233 (1999). On appeal, “[t]his court has the responsibility to conduct its own in camera review of the sealed records to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to release those records to the defendant....

  3. State v. Steven Manns

    882 A.2d 703 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)   Cited 3 times

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 58-59, 836 A.2d 224 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 908, 124 S. Ct. 1614, 158 L. Ed. 2d 254 (2004); see also State v. Gainey, 76 Conn. App. 155, 163, 818 A.2d 859 (2003). "In determining whether a defendant's right of cross-examination has been unduly restricted, we consider the nature of the excluded inquiry, whether the field of inquiry was adequately covered by other questions that were allowed, and the overall quality of the cross-examination viewed in relation to the issues actually litigated at trial.

  4. State v. Smith

    85 Conn. App. 96 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 8 times
    Finding trial court erred when it prohibited defendant from offering expert testimony that someone else's sperm heads or semen were found on victim's body or clothing where such evidence was relevant to establishment of victim's assailant rather than victim's general unchaste character as prohibited by rape shield law

    Furthermore, after an in camera inspection by this court of the department's files in question relating to the accusation, we agree with the trial court that the files do not contain any information that would allow the shield of § 54-86f to be pierced. See State v. Gainey, 76 Conn. App. 155, 161-62, 818 A.2d 859 (2003). The defendant also wanted to introduce into evidence expert testimony about the result of DNA tests, which indicated that he and the other two men with him on the day of the assault on T had been excluded as the source of semen found on T's socks and anus.

  5. 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

    (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gainey, 76 Conn. App. 155, 158-59, 818 A.2d 859 (2003). After closely examining each of the challenged records, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in limiting access to the victim's confidential records or in redacting those records that it did disclose.

  6. State v. Williams

    81 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 27 times

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reynolds, supra, 264 Conn. 58-59; State v. Gainey, 76 Conn. App. 155, 163, 818 A.2d 859 (2003). "In determining whether a defendant's right of cross-examination has been unduly restricted, we consider the nature of the excluded inquiry, whether the field of inquiry was adequately covered by other questions that were allowed, and the overall quality of the cross-examination viewed in relation to the issues actually litigated at trial.

  7. State v. Gombert

    80 Conn. App. 477 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 20 times

    We review the court's decision not to release confidential records to determine if the court abused its discretion. State v. Olah, 60 Conn. App. 350, 354, 759 A.2d 548 (2000); see also State v. Gainey, 76 Conn. App. 155, 158, 818 A.2d 859 (2003). "Discretion means a legal discretion, to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner to subserve and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice. . . . It goes without saying that the term abuse of discretion . . . means that the ruling appears to have been made on untenable grounds. . . .

  8. State v. Pepper

    79 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that particular question that merely referenced investigative efforts of police did not constitute Doyle violation

    " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gainey, 76 Conn. App. 155, 163, 818 A.2d 859 (2003). Here, the defendant argues that the court improperly restricted the cross-examination of the victim by not allowing inquiry concerning the victim's suicide attempt and its underlying causes.

  9. Gainey v. Warden

    2005 Conn. Super. Ct. 14416 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

    5. The victim did not report these incidents of sexual assault to anyone until approximately four years later, in 1999, when she told Officer Hardy Burgin of the East Hartford police department. State v. Gainey, 76 Conn.App. 155, 156-58 (2003). 6. The petitioner was represented in the underlying proceedings by Public Defender Michael Isko.

  10. Miller v. Barber

    2005 Ct. Sup. 9729 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)   Cited 1 times
    Granting directed verdict on legal malpractice action in part because the plaintiff failed to produce evidence as to how the attorney's alleged failure to communicate and consult "would have altered the result of [plaintiff's] appeal" in the underlying case.

    1012 (2004); State v. Luis F., 85 Conn.App. 264, 856 A.2d 522 (2004); State v. Briscoe, 84 Conn.App. 120, 852 A.2d 746, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 944, 861 A.2d 1178 (2004); State v. Johnson, 82 Conn.App. 777, 848 A.2d 526 (2004); State v. Calderon, 82 Conn.App. 315, 844 A.2d 866, cert. denied, 270 Conn. 905, 853 A.2d 523 (2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 487, CT Page 9739 160 L.Ed.2d 361 (2004); State v. Shells, 82 Conn.App. 332, 844 A.2d 235, cert. denied 270 Conn. 911, 853 A.2d 529 (2004); State v. Williams, 88 Conn.App. 1, 38 A.2d 214, cert. denied, 268 Conn. 904, 845 A.2d 409 (2004); State v. Gombert, 80 Conn.App. 477, 836 A.2d 437 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 915, 841 A.2d 220 (2004); State v. Aaron L., 79 Conn.App. 397, 830 A.2d 776 (2003), aff'd, 272 Conn. 78, 865 A.2d 1135 (2005); State v. Pepper, 79 Conn.App. 1, 828 A.2d 1268 (2003), aff'd, 272 Conn. 10, 860 A.2d 1221 (2004); State v. William B., 76 Conn.App. 730, 822 A.2d 265, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 918, 828 A.2d 618 (2003); State v. Gainey, 76 Conn.App. 155, 818 A.2d 859 (2003). The primary interest secured by confrontation is the right to cross-examination . . . and an important function of cross-examination is the exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying . . .