135 Conn. App. 385
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Victim Matthew Barrett beaten and stabbed to death on May 5, 2005, at Best Buy Auto in New Haven.
- Two black men fled the scene; Kraushon Clark saw the crime and identified the defendant from a photo array.
- DNA testing linked the defendant to blood on a box cutter; victim DNA found on several other items; codefendant Adeyemi linked to the victim's cell phone DNA.
- Codefendant Adeyemi communicated with the defendant before/after the murder; substantial phone calls across several states.
- Defendant gave multiple interviews, including a March 16, 2006 videotaped prepolygraph interview; an enhanced audio recording of this interview was later introduced at trial.
- Trial court denied a 30-day continuance petition to test 21 previously untested DNA swabs after the enhanced audio was to be used; testing was expedited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the continuance denial for DNA testing was an abuse of discretion | Davis | Davis | No abuse; denial reasonable under circumstances |
| Whether denial impaired the defendant's right to present a defense | Davis | Davis | Not shown; defense strategy and timing allowed later testing without prejudice |
| Whether late-disclosed polygraph interview statements were unfairly used | State disclosed enhanced tape; defense lacked time to test remaining DNA | Test access denied or delayed | Not an abuse; statements were not new evidence and were anticipated to be admissible |
| Whether the court should have reopened the evidence for new DNA findings | State submitted updated DNA report; reopening would serve justice | Defense strategy premised on earlier results; reopening would be inconsistent | Court not required to reopen; defendant chose not to move to reopen after final report |
| Whether the court properly balanced trial economy and defendant's rights on continuance | Judicial economy justified; delay would burden witnesses/jurors | Continuance needed to test evidence for defense | Discretion not abused; factors weighed in defendant's disfavor |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hamilton, 228 Conn. 234 (Conn. 1994) (continuance discretion with harmless error analysis guidance)
- State v. Delgado, 261 Conn. 708 (Conn. 2002) (factors for continuance; speculative reasons insufficient)
- State v. Calderon, 82 Conn.App. 315 (Conn. App. 2004) (on-the-day continuance considerations; judicial economy)
- State v. Brown, 242 Conn. 445 (Conn. 1997) (midtrial DNA delay—affirming denial of continuance)
- State v. Ortiz, 40 Conn.App. 374 (Conn. App. 1996) (affirming denial of continuance after jury selection)