State v. Gray, 212 Conn.App. 193

Background:

Vice officers observed a brief interaction between the defendant (Gray) and Brian Drobnak at a convenience‑store parking lot; shortly after, officers found Drobnak with a white, rock‑like substance that field‑tested positive for crack cocaine.
Officers stopped Gray’s car, found an unclaimed LG phone that rang when investigators called Drobnak’s number, and seized $1,268 from Gray; no narcotics were recovered from Gray’s vehicle.
The police department immediately deposited the seized currency into a bank account per an outdated department practice; Gray requested production of the actual bills pretrial but they were unavailable.
A forensic lab report described the seized narcotics as being in “knotted plastic,” although officers and Drobnak had testified the drugs were “loose”; during trial the lab produced two photos showing what initially appeared to be knotted plastic.
Defense raised (1) a state‑constitutional due process claim and motion to dismiss/suppress the currency under §54‑36a, (2) a Brady claim and postverdict motions based on the lab photographs’ late disclosure, and (3) a challenge to the admission of an enlarged lab photo and rebuttal testimony; the jury convicted Gray of possession with intent to sell.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gray)	Held
1) Whether police deposit of seized cash without statutorily required notice violated due process under Conn. Const. art. I, §8	Currency’s loss was not in bad faith; its exculpatory value was speculative and the defense had full cross‑examination and argument to address the absence	Statute §54‑36a required notice and allowed testing/inspection; unpreserved bills prevented DNA/fingerprint testing and denomination verification that could have been exculpatory	Police violated §54‑36a and acted with reckless disregard, but under Asherman balancing the missing currency was immaterial and defendant suffered no prejudice — claim denied
2) Whether late disclosure of forensic lab photographs violated Brady	Photos were not in prosecutor’s possession until subpoenaed; photos were not favorable to the defense because enlarged photo showed glare, not knotted plastic	Late disclosure prevented alternate strategy/plea and the photos (as described in the report) were potentially exculpatory on chain‑of‑custody	No Brady violation: photos were not favorable/exculpatory (enlarged photo negated knotted‑plastic inference); postverdict motions denied
3) Whether admitting an enlarged lab photo and rebuttal testimony was an abuse of discretion	Rebuttal testimony and enlarged photo reasonably explained the apparent inconsistency and were proper rebuttal	Admission and rebuttal reopened state’s case and deprived defense of pre‑examination of witnesses and the exhibit	Issue not reviewable — defendant invited the error by requesting lab witnesses after moving for acquittal and had full opportunity to cross‑examine

Key Cases Cited

State v. Asherman, 193 Conn. 695 (Conn. 1984) (establishes balancing test for loss/unavailability of potentially exculpatory evidence under the Connecticut Constitution)
State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 (Conn. 1995) (rejects federal bad‑faith rule; directs use of Asherman balancing under state constitution)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (federal due process requires bad faith for failure to preserve potentially useful evidence)
Correia v. Rowland, 263 Conn. 453 (Conn. 2003) (unpreserved, untested evidence is not automatically exculpatory)
State v. Barnes, 127 Conn. App. 24 (Conn. App. 2011) (trial court may mitigate prejudice from missing evidence by permitting full cross‑examination and argument)
State v. Gradzik, 193 Conn. 35 (Conn. 1984) (evidence not exculpatory when it does not support defense theory)