Legal Opinion
State v. Thornton
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided February 17, 2009No. AC 28170PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LAVINE, J.
Connecticut is unique in that its constitution and statutes provide a right in criminal cases to question each venireperson individually; see Conn. Const., art. I, § 8; Conn. Const., art. I, § 19; 2 outside the presence of other venirepersons. See General Statutes §§ 54-82f and 54-84g; see also State v. Robinson, 237 Conn. 238, 247 n.9, 676 A.2d 384 (1996). The purpose of such voir dire is to enable the court to determine whether the venireperson is qualified to serve on the jury and to assist the parties in the informed exercise of peremptory challenges. See State v. Barnes,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public HealthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- State v. DaySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- State v. GriffinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- State v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. EbronSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
- State v. WeavingConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
- State v. ReevesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2010
- State v. Mota-RoyaceliConnecticut Appellate Court · 2018
- Muldrow v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2023
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.