Vogel v. Sylvester

75 Citing cases

  1. State v. Hafner

    168 Conn. 230 (Conn. 1975)   Cited 67 times

    Such evidence of the defendant's immoral conduct in that area was arguably admissible as probative of his veracity with respect to his prior testimony about his familiarity with the area as a "lovers' lane," as the state's attorney argued. See State v. Guthridge, 164 Conn. 145, 157, 318 A.2d 87; Vogel v. Sylvester, 148 Conn. 666, 675, 174 A.2d 122. In sustaining the objections to two of these questions, however, the trial court may well have concluded that the prejudicial effect of the evidence would outweigh its probative value.

  2. State v. Lambert

    58 Conn. App. 349 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000)   Cited 7 times

    The court permitted testimony about the alias used at the hospital because the police had suggested using the alias for purposes of protection. The defendant next claims that the court improperly precluded him from eliciting testimony about the context in which the aliases were used. He relies on Vogel v. Sylvester, 148 Conn. 666, 677, 174 A.2d 122 (1961), in contending that when aliases are used in connection with illegal activities such as drug dealing and prostitution, "a new and additional element is injected," which may affect the relevance of such activities to the issue of veracity. "A witness may be impeached by evidence of specific acts of misconduct that relate to veracity, but not by those that merely illustrate general bad behavior."

  3. Givens v. W. T. Grant Company

    457 F.2d 612 (2d Cir. 1972)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that attorney's fees may not "be included in determining the jurisdictional amount unless they are recoverable as a matter of right"

    Even if plaintiffs were entitled to punitive damages, however, it is well established under Connecticut law that such damages are limited to the amount of a plaintiff's actual litigation expenses less taxable costs. Collens v. New Canaan Water Co., 155 Conn. 477, 488, 234 A.2d 825, 831-32 (1967); Triangle Sheet Metal Works v. Silver, 154 Conn. 116, 127, 222 A.2d 220, 225 (1966); Vogel v. Sylvester, 148 Conn. 666, 673, 174 A.2d 122, 126 (1961); Tedesco v. Maryland Casualty Co., 127 Conn. 533, 538, 18 A.2d 357, 359 (1941). Here plaintiffs are represented by attorneys on the staff of the New Haven Legal Assistance Association (New Haven LAA), a nonprofit organization funded by the federal government, the state government and private contributions.

  4. Jacobs v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

    324 F.2d 50 (2d Cir. 1963)   Cited 3 times

    Finally, a verdict of $25,000 for a 74 year old woman, who was in good health before the accident and suffered a hip fracture requiring open reduction and insertion of a permanent Smith-Peterson nail and plate, 21 days hospitalization and 4 or 5 months in a nursing home, who now has a 5% disability of the hip and lifelong discomfort from the protrusion of the metal into muscle tissue, incurred more than $2,000 in medical expenses, and must use a cane, strikes us as falling within the "necessarily flexible limits of fair and reasonable compensation." Vogel v. Sylvester, 148 Conn. 666, 669, 174 A.2d 122, 124 (1961). We find no error and affirm the judgment.

  5. State v. Calhoun

    346 Conn. 288 (Conn. 2023)   Cited 3 times
    Recognizing that probative value of gratuitous references to witness' obligation under agreement to tell truth are ''negligible and outweighed by their prejudicial effect''

    See, e.g., State v. Ortiz , supra, 343 Conn. at 588, 275 A.3d 578 ; Vogel v. Sylvester , 148 Conn. 666, 675–76, 174 A.2d 122 (1961). The defendant argues that these facts contradict Kierce's statement to the grand jury that he intended to give up his "criminal lifestyle."

  6. State v. Torres

    343 Conn. 208 (Conn. 2022)

    Indeed, we previously have observed that remoteness alone, apart from any other consideration, may justify, although not require, the exclusion of specific acts of misconduct. Vogel v. Sylvester , 148 Conn. 666, 676, 174 A.2d 122 (1961) ; see also, e.g., State v. James , 211 Conn. 555, 571–72, 560 A.2d 426 (1989) ("[e]ven if the evidence did involve untruthfulness, the court was well within its discretion in excluding it because of its remoteness in time, its minimal bearing on credibility, and its tendency to inject a collateral issue into the trial"); State v. Morgan , 70 Conn. App. 255, 274, 797 A.2d 616 ("[a]lthough inquiry into ... [specific] acts [of misconduct] might have borne on the issue of [the witness’] credibility, the court was free to determine, as it did, that the remoteness of the acts tended to outweigh their probative value"), cert. denied, 261 Conn. 919, 806 A.2d 1056 (2002) ; E. Prescott, Tait's Handbook of Connecticut Evidence (6th Ed. 2019) § 6.28.4, p. 390 ("even if the conduct does relate to veracity, the court still has discretion to exclude it if the evidence has slight relevance due to remoteness in time or other considerations"). The misconduct underlying Jones’ 2002 misdemeanor larceny c

  7. State v. Rivera

    335 Conn. 720 (Conn. 2020)   Cited 7 times

    As to the first and second limitations, "[w]hether particular acts of misconduct are relevant to lack of veracity depends on whether they have a logical tendency to indicate a lack of veracity. ... [U]nless particular acts of misconduct are indicative of a lack of veracity, it is error to permit cross-examination concerning them, however much they may be indicative of bad moral character. ... It does not follow, however, that if the acts inquired about are indicative of a lack of veracity, the court must permit the cross-examination." (Citations omitted; footnote omitted) Vogel v. Sylvester , 148 Conn. 666, 675–76, 174 A.2d 122 (1961). "In considering whether the court abused its discretion in this regard, the question is not whether any one of us, had we been sitting as the trial judge, would have exercised our discretion differently. ... Rather, our inquiry is limited to whether the trial court's ruling was arbitrary or unreasonable."

  8. Bifolck v. Philip Morris, Inc.

    324 Conn. 362 (Conn. 2016)   Cited 58 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding same for product liability statute

    In addition, the statute vests the court with exclusive authority to determine the amount of damages, whereas the trier of fact traditionally had determined the amount of common-law punitive damages. See Matthiessen v. Vanech , 266 Conn. 822, 826, 836 A.2d 394 (2003) ; Kenny v. Civil Service Commission , 197 Conn. 270, 277, 496 A.2d 956 (1985) ; Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. , 192 Conn. 280, 295, 472 A.2d 306 (1984) ; Vogel v. Sylvester , 148 Conn. 666, 673, 174 A.2d 122 (1961) ; Hanna v. Sweeney , supra, 78 Conn. at 493, 62 A. 785 ; Perkins v. ColonialCemeteries, Inc. , 53 Conn.App. 646, 647, 734 A.2d 1010 (1999) ; see also Proto v. Bridgeport Herald Corp. , 136 Conn. 557, 571, 72 A.2d 820 (1950).Indeed, it was precisely because juries assessed the amount of punitive damages that this court was motivated to adopt the common-law rule, limiting the exercise of the jury's discretion by tying such damages to litigation expenses.

  9. Filippelli v. Saint Mary's Hospitai

    SC19148 (Conn. Oct. 13, 2015)

    "In an attack on his credit, inquiry may be made, in the discretion of the court, as to particular acts of misconduct tending to show a lack of veracity, even though such evidence might be irrelevant to the issues in the case. Vogel v. Sylvester, [148 Conn. 666, 675, 174 A.2d 122 (1961)]; Shailer v. Bullock, [78 Conn. 65, 69, 61 A. 65 (1905)]; [C. McCormick, Evidence (1954)] § 42." Martyn v. Donlin, 151 Conn. 402, 408, 198 A.2d 700 (1964).

  10. Filippelli v. Saint Mary's Hosp.

    319 Conn. 113 (Conn. 2015)   Cited 10 times
    In Filippelli, our Supreme Court clarified that, unlike most other jurisdictions, which limit the use of learned treatises to an "oral reading in connection with an expert witness’ testimony," Connecticut's learned treatise rule permits such treatises "to be taken into the jury room as... full exhibit[s]."

    “In an attack on his credit, inquiry may be made, in the discretion of the court, as to particular acts of misconduct tending to show a lack of veracity, even though such evidence might be irrelevant to the issues in the case. Vogel v. Sylvester,[148 Conn. 666, 675, 174 A.2d 122 (1961) ]; Shailer v. Bullock,