State v. Walker, 147 Conn. App. 1

Defendant James E. Walker convicted after jury trial of one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree assault under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-59(a)(5), 53a-48.
Guilt based largely on jailhouse informant Dickerson’s testimony in exchange for consideration in his own case.
Police recovered a Beretta and shell casings at the Dixwell Avenue shooting scene; fingerprint on a car matched the defendant.
DNA on a sneaker in the fence area showed defendant as a major contributor.
Evidence linked Walker to the gray Ford Focus and to James Dickerson via phone records and DNA, supporting a joint shooting theory.
Jury acquitted Walker of assault in the first degree as either an accessory or a principal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence where central witness is jailhouse informant	Walker argues Dickerson’s testimony alone insufficient	Walker contends lack of corroboration for informant evidence	No merit; traditional two-part sufficiency test applied; no rule requiring one-witness-plus-corroboration established
Right to be present at critical stages in chambers regarding conflict of interest	State argues no adequate record of in-chambers conference	Walker asserts absence violated right to be present at critical stages	Record inadequate for review; no clear critical-stage showing; Golding/plain-error relief denied
Admissibility of latent fingerprint testimony after evidence loss; Morales-Asherman due process analysis	State argues prints lost; testimony admissible for weight	Rights to confrontation and due process violated; Morales-Asherman balancing required	Record insufficient to apply Morales-Asherman; no remand for evidentiary hearing; claim not reviewable on appeal

State v. Butler, 296 Conn. 62 (Conn. (2010)) (sufficiency review framework (two-part, favorable-to-verdict, reasonable-doubt))
State v. Parrott, 262 Conn. 276 (Conn. (2003)) (conflict-of-interest inquiry principles; loyalty duty)
State v. Drakeford, 261 Conn. 420 (Conn. (2002)) (court may rely on attorney representations during conflict inquiry)
State v. Lopez, 271 Conn. 724 (Conn. (2004)) (definition of critical stage; presence or waiver considerations)
State v. Chambers, 296 Conn. 397 (Conn. (2010)) (fact-intensive inquiry into whether conference is critical stage)
State v. Hazel, 106 Conn. App. 213 (Conn. App. (2008)) (absence of record may bar review on appeal)
State v. Sam, 98 Conn. App. 13 (Conn. App. (2006)) (in camera conflict inquiry may be critical stage)
State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 (Conn. (1995)) (Asherman balancing test for missing evidence due process)
State v. Asherman, 193 Conn. 695 (Conn. (1984)) (Asherman balancing factors for missing evidence)
State v. Joyce, 243 Conn. 282 (Conn. (1997)) (Asherman factors and missing evidence analysis)
State v. Darden, 239 Conn. 467 (Conn. (1996)) (need for factual findings to review Ash/ Morales issues)
State v. Collins, 299 Conn. 567 (Conn. (2011)) (Golding framework conditions)