State v. Cooper
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partParskey, J.
I cannot agree with the majority opinion’s holding that Connecticut law requires the trial court, when requested, to instruct the jury on the motive of a complaining witness to falsify testimony. The court’s decision states a general rule, for all cases, requiring such an instruction which places the credibility of a victim on a par with that of a self-confessed accomplice.
The majority opinion’s approach is strikingly similar to that in State v. Ruth, 181 Conn. 187, 196, 435 A.2d 3 (1980), which concluded that an analagous instruction was required by Connecticut law on the interest of a…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- State v. JustMontana Supreme Court · 1979
- State v. RuthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- State v. SmootIdaho Supreme Court · 1978
- Lopez v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1976
- Channel v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1979
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.