State v. Ingram, 31 A.3d 835

Defendant John Ingram was convicted by jury of first-degree robbery under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-134(a)(3).
The crime occurred August 3, 2007, when the defendant allegedly robbed Zaka Uddin at the Getty Mart in East Hartford after leaving Houlihan's in Glastonbury.
The perpetrator wore dark clothing and a black nylon mask, carried a red backpack, and used a large knife during the theft.
A nylon cap and items from the red backpack, including a Houlihan's cap, were linked to the defendant by DNA analysis.
Police dog Primo, operated by handler Mona, conducted a scout and potentially bit the perpetrator; the defendant sustained a dog bite on his ankle.
DNA on the cap and items in the backpack, plus the defendant’s appearance and sightings, supported the jury’s identification of Ingram as the robber and his subsequent arrest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to identify the perpetrator	Ingram	Ingram	Evidence sufficient beyond reasonable doubt
Admissibility of dog scouting and dog bite evidence	State	Ingram	Court did not abuse discretion; admissible under Wilson/Porter
Failure to give dog-tracking instruction	State	Ingram	Charge given in substance; no error in omission of exact wording
Prosecutorial impropriety during closing/rebuttal	State	Ingram	No reversible prosecutorial error; trial affirmed

State v. Green, 261 Conn. 653 (2002) (sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence framework)
State v. Butler, 296 Conn. 62 (2010) (circumstantial evidence; standard of review for guilt)
State v. Wilson, 180 Conn. 481 (1980) (dog tracking foundation requirements)
State v. Sorabella, 277 Conn. 155 (2006) (porter framework for scientific evidence/admissibility)
State v. John, 282 Conn. 260 (2007) (admissibility of dog-related evidence under Wilson)
State v. St. John, 282 Conn. 260 (2007) (dog tracking evidence admissibility)