Court Opinion

ID: 9647641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:43:43.907432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:51.576304
License: Public Domain

Loiselle, J.
(dissenting). I agree with the majority opinion extending the rule of admissibility of evidence of aggression on the part of the victim on the issue of self-defense, but I do not agree that evidence of specific acts is admissible for that purpose. The rationale for the rule which we have always followed, making specific acts inadmissible to prove a character trait, was well stated in Richmond v. Norwich, 96 Conn. 582, 597, 115 A. 11, and I see nothing in this case to warrant overruling this time-honored practice. See also State v. Townsend, 167 Conn. 539, 561, 356 A.2d 125.