134 Conn. App. 573
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Murder convictions: two murder counts by shotgun; possession of a sawed-off shotgun.
- DNA evidence: state laboratory reported DNA matches for the defendant and other items; supplemental report issued April 5, 2010.
- Discovery issue: defense moved to preclude the April 2010 supplemental DNA report for late disclosure.
- Court ruling on discovery: court allowed the supplemental report, granted two-day continuance for defense to review.
- Trial timing: direct examination of the DNA expert began April 14, 2010; cross-examination scheduled and conducted amid scheduling adjustments.
- Defendant’s argument: denial of motion to preclude the supplemental report and shortened continuance violated due process and fairness.
- Holding: trial court’s rulings on preclusion and continuance were not an abuse of discretion; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the supplemental DNA report should have been precluded | Cooke argues late disclosure harmed due process | Cooke argues prejudice from late disclosure | No abuse of discretion; no preclusion |
| Whether the continuance for cross-examination was improper | State contends two-day continuance sufficient | Cooke sought longer cross-exam time | Two-day continuance reasonable under circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hamlett, 105 Conn.App. 862 (2008) (discretion to fashion discovery sanctions and intent to protect rights)
- State v. Respass, 256 Conn. 164 (2001) (suppression is a severe sanction to be used sparingly)
- Smart v. Corbitt, 126 Conn.App. 788 (2011) (appellate review requires deference to trial court’s discretion)
- State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 () (DNA and related evidence explained)