State v. Orlando F., 233 Conn.App. 1

Orlando F. was convicted in Connecticut of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and reckless endangerment after a jury trial.
The case involved an incident where the victim arranged a meeting with Orlando F. via a dating app and was subsequently robbed and assaulted; the perpetrator fled in the victim's car.
DNA evidence from a bite wound on the victim linked Orlando F. to the crime scene, as did video surveillance footage and corroborating testimony.
The state introduced testimony by B, a former partner and mother of Orlando F.'s children, who identified him in surveillance video during the trial; B was not an eyewitness to the crime itself but testified based on her familiarity with the defendant.
At trial, Orlando F. sought to preclude B's identification testimony, arguing that her bias and the method of showing the video created undue prejudice and risked unfairness.
The trial court admitted B's testimony and denied additional jury instructions specific to nonpercipient witness identification; Orlando F. appealed on evidentiary and instructional grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of B's Identification Testimony	Admissible due to her longstanding familiarity with Orlando F.; video was unclear enough to justify her aid to jury	Testimony should be excluded as unduly prejudicial because of B's bias and the circumstances under which she viewed the video	Testimony admissible; B was sufficiently familiar with defendant, probative value outweighed prejudice
Consideration of Bias and Suggestiveness	N/A	Court should consider B's bias and the influence of viewing the video for the first time during trial	Bias goes to weight, not admissibility; record does not establish B saw video for the first time at trial so argument not reviewable
Prejudicial vs. Probative Value	Any prejudice is outweighed by the probative value, especially considering other evidence	Testimony risked unfairly prejudicing the jury due to inability to fully cross-examine on bias	Probative value outweighed any potential prejudice; admission not an abuse of discretion
Jury Instruction on Nonpercipient Identification	No special instruction required by law; standard instructions sufficient	Court should have given a specific instruction on how to assess B's identification	No plain error; no legal requirement for such an instruction, so omission not reversible

State v. Gore, 342 Conn. 129 (Conn. 2022) (establishes test for admissibility of nonpercipient lay opinion identification testimony based on witness familiarity and video quality)
State v. Hill, 307 Conn. 689 (Conn. 2013) (standards for exclusion based on unfair prejudice)
State v. Graham, 200 Conn. 9 (Conn. 1986) (definition of prejudice in evidentiary rulings)
State v. Harris, 277 Conn. 378 (Conn. 2006) (bias affects weight, not admissibility, of evidence)
State v. Jones, 351 Conn. 324 (Conn. 2025) (standards governing undue prejudice and admissibility of evidence)
State v. Outlaw, 350 Conn. 251 (Conn. 2024) (harmless error standard in the context of evidentiary rulings)
State v. Leniart, 333 Conn. 88 (Conn. 2019) (credibility determinations are the jury's province)
State v. Inzitari, 351 Conn. 86 (Conn. 2025) (jury instructions evaluated as a whole for fairness and accuracy)