State v. Thompson, 128 Conn. App. 296

Thompson was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and kidnapping in the first degree as an accessory, with burglary in the first degree dismissed on motion for acquittal.
The charges stemmed from a 11:30 p.m. August 10, 2004 home invasion in Bloomfield where two masked men with guns searched the residence while the victim was forced to remain on the floor.
DNA evidence from two urine samples at the crime scene yielded a profile; Thompson was later tested against that profile after jailhouse informants identified him as a suspect.
The state tested the urine samples in 2005, exhausting the original swabs in the process but retaining extract for potential retesting; Thompson challenged preservation and admissibility of this DNA evidence.
Thompson moved to dismiss and to suppress the DNA evidence, arguing due process concerns due to consumption of the swabs; the court denied these motions.
The trial court sentenced Thompson to concurrent twenty-year terms for robbery counts and a twenty-five year term for kidnapping, for an aggregate forty-five year sentence, which Thompson challenged on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
DNA evidence preservation due process	Thompson: swabs consumed, depriving defense of testing; violates due process.	Morales balancing test shows prejudice; destruction of evidence harmed defense.	Not a due process violation; swabs consumed but DNA extract remains and no materiality or prejudice established.
Instruction on DNA evidence	DNA evidence is highly scientific; jury should receive a specific instruction.	Trial court failed to tailor instruction to DNA; requested instruction should be given.	No reversible error; charge adequate as a whole; court did not highlight DNA over other evidence.
Brady/exculpatory evidence	State suppressed fingerprint and hair samples that could exculpate Thompson.	Suppressed evidence could have led to exculpation or new suspects.	No Brady violation; suppression not shown to be favorable or material.
Prosecutorial impropriety in rebuttal	Prosecutor improperly suggested planted evidence.	Remarks biased the jury against Thompson.	Not reversible error; remarks isolated and not prejudicial in the context of the trial.
New trial due to closing argument and discovery	Prosecutor comments and undisclosed evidence undermined fairness.	State misconduct and nondisclosure violated due process.	No abuse of discretion; verdict supported by evidence and conduct not shown to deprive due process.

State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 (1995) (balancing test for due process when evidence not preserved)
State v. Joyce, 243 Conn. 282 (1997) (materiality and weighting of missing evidence in due process analysis)
State v. Asherman, 193 Conn. 695 (1984) (framework for due process balancing in missing evidence cases)
State v. Jones, 50 Conn.App. 338 (1998) (testimony to minimize misinterpretation of DNA evidence)
State v. Luther, 114 Conn.App. 799 (2009) (avoidance of improper emphasis in jury instructions)
State v. Reynolds, 118 Conn.App. 278 (2009) (prosecutorial impropriety factors in due process analysis)
State v. Aviles, 277 Conn. 281 (2006) (standard for assessing trial errors under proper legal framework)
State v. Dougherty, 123 Conn.App. 872 (2010) (charge adequacy and adaptation to issues)
State v. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 558 (2009) (adequacy of jury instructions in complex cases)
State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 (2010) (objections and cure for prosecutorial impropriety)
State v. Garlington, 122 Conn.App. 345 (2010) (Brady analysis and materiality considerations)