# State v. Malave

> Supreme Court of Connecticut · September 21, 1999 · 250 Conn. 722

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7846315

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ALEX MALAVE
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Connecticut
- **Decided:** September 21, 1999
- **Citations:** 250 Conn. 722; 737 A.2d 442; 1999 Conn. LEXIS 319
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Callahan
- **Judges:** Berdon, Callahan, Palmer
- **Cited by:** 87 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7846315

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that “the rule should be abandoned in criminal cases”
- acknowledging that constitutional argument supports conclusion that, “as a policy matter,” the instruction should be abandoned

## Opinion text

CALLAHAN, C. J.,
concurring. I concur with the result reached in the majority opinion. I write separately, however, because I do not think it is either necessary or desirable to require a party who intends to mention during closing argument the failure of an adversary to call a witness to notify the court and the opposing party in advance. It seems to me that it is always a proper argument to point out a lack of evidence and, as long as the jury is not asked to draw an inference, it is fair comment to bring to the jury’s attention the absence of a witness to support the opposition’s theory of the case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7846315. Public record. Not legal advice.