State v. Qayyum

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Massaro

    347 Conn. 200 (Conn. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Qayyum , 344 Conn. 302, 316, 279 A.3d 172 (2022). "Accordingly, a nonconstitutional error is harmless when an appellate court has a fair assurance that the error did not substantially affect the verdict."

  2. State v. Bember

    349 Conn. 417 (Conn. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    These claims are thus unpreserved, and we decline to review them on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Qayyum, 344 Conn. 302, 312, 279 A.3d 172 (2022) ("[D]efense counsel’s failure to object to those questions necessarily means that he did not articulate his claim regarding those questions with sufficient clarity to put the trial court on notice. As a result, we conclude that the defendant failed to preserve this evidentiary claim, and, therefore, we do not review it.").

  3. State v. James K.

    347 Conn. 648 (Conn. 2023)   Cited 5 times

    Moreover, the conjunctive test is also more consistent with similar tests we apply when we are called on to evaluate a trial court's exercise of discretion, such as the test for evidentiary improprieties, which requires that the defendant prove both an abuse of discretion and harmful error. See, e.g., State v. Qayyum , 344 Conn. 302, 316, 279 A.3d 172 (2022) ("[i]n order to establish reversible error on an evidentiary impropriety, the defendant must prove both an abuse of discretion and a harm that resulted from such abuse" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we clarify that a trial court has wide discretion in conducting a voir dire and that the exercise of that discretion will not constitute reversible error unless it has clearly been abused and harmful prejudice appears to have resulted.

  4. State v. Griffin

    220 Conn. App. 225 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, this claim is unpreserved, and we decline to review it. See, e.g., State v. Qayyum , 201 Conn. App. 864, 872 n.2, 242 A.3d 500 (2020), aff'd, 344 Conn. 302, 279 A.3d 172 (2022). Furthermore, the defendant cannot obtain review of his unpreserved evidentiary claim by labeling it with a constitutional tag.

  5. Cody Real Estate, LLC v. G & H Catering, Inc.

    219 Conn. App. 773 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    We note that, although the plaintiff did not raise the preservation issue in its brief to this court, we are not precluded from doing so. See, e.g., State v. Qayyum , 201 Conn. App. 864, 872 n.2, 879 n.3, 242 A.3d 500 (2020) (observing that defendant failed to properly preserve claims on appeal even though state had not raised preservation issue), aff'd, 344 Conn. 302, 279 A.3d 172 (2022). We are particularly unwilling to review this unpreserved claim because its resolution appears to raise at least one significant factual question.

  6. R. H. v. M. H.

    219 Conn. App. 716 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 3 times
    In R.H. v. M.H., 296 A.3d 243, 250 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023), the Connecticut Court of Appeals was confronted with a similar scenario in which a circuit court ordered supervised visitation for the mother in that case, but delegated authority to the father to determine whether and when she would be permitted unsupervised visitation.

    (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Qayyum , 344 Conn. 302, 310–11, 279 A.3d 172 (2022).

  7. State v. Perez-Lopez

    218 Conn. App. 555 (Conn. App. Ct. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Qayyum , 344 Conn. 302, 315, 279 A.3d 172 (2022) ; see also State v. Hazard , 201 Conn. App. 46, 70–71, 240 A.3d 749, cert. denied, 336 Conn. 901, 242 A.3d 711 (2020). Former Chief Justice Rogers authored a concurring opinion to express her "disagreement with the necessity for the special evidentiary rule of Holliman and to suggest that, when the issue squarely presents itself in a future appeal, this court abandon that rule and instead hold, as did the United States Supreme Court in Perry v. New Hampshire , [supra, 565 U.S. 228, 132 S.Ct. 716], that potentially unreliable eyewitness identifications resulting from suggestive procedures undertaken by private actors should be evaluated like any other potentially unreliable evidence—namely, by a fully informed, properly instructed jury within the confines of a trial employing the usual array of constitutional safeguards."