State v. Williams, 146 Conn. App. 114

Defendant Stanley Williams appeals his convictions for two counts of first-degree robbery and two counts of first-degree unlawful restraint, plus a persistent dangerous felony offender enhancement.
The principal issue concerns reliability of eyewitness identification, following State v. Guilbert which permits expert testimony on eyewitness fallibility when helpful to the jury.
Two robberies occurred in Waterbury in May 2009, involving Kaur at a liquor store and DeJesus at an outlet store; both victims identified Williams or were shown evidence linking him to the crimes.
Kaur described the robber as older with a beard; DeJesus described a black, older man with a gray goatee and a knife, and identified Williams from a photographic array at trial.
The defense sought to admit Penrod’s expert testimony on eyewitness identification; the court precluded it, citing lack of foundation and relevance per Porter and Guilbert standards.
The state introduced Smyth, a department optometrist, to testify about Williams’s need for eyeglasses; the defense challenged the subpoena and HIPAA implications, but the court admitted the testimony as relevant to misidentification questions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony on eyewitness reliability was admissible	Williams contends admissibility follows Guilbert permitting such expert testimony.	Penrod’s testimony would help the jury understand reliability factors not within common knowledge.	Court affirmed preclusion; Guilbert allows discretion but did not require admission here.
Whether optometrist testimony on eyeglasses was admissible	Smyth’s testimony relevant to misidentification and eyewitness perception.	Subpoena and privacy issues; testimony should be excluded if records obtained improperly.	Court held Smyth’s testimony admissible as relevant and reasonably obtained; no abuse of discretion.
Whether the subpoena and handling of medical records violated HIPAA or Fourth Amendment rights	Subpoena to obtain records violated privacy and required warrant.	HIPAA permits subpoena in criminal prosecutions; records improperly released were a concern.	Court concluded subpoena was reasonable and did not violate Fourth Amendment; issues on HIPAA/evidentiary remedy were inadequately briefed for review.

State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (2012) (admissibility of eyewitness ID expert testimony after Porter)
State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (1997) (expert testimony on scientific theories must be admissible under threshold reliability)
State v. Marquez, 291 Conn. 122 (2009) (identification procedures and suggestiveness standards)
State v. McClendon, 248 Conn. 572 (1999) (eyewitness identification factors within jurors' knowledge; later partly overruled by Guilbert)
State v. Kemp, 199 Conn. 473 (1986) (prior rule limiting expert testimony on eyewitness identification)
State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 (2010) (reevaluation of expert testimony on eyewitness identification post-Guilbert)
State v. Legrand, 129 Conn. App. 239 (2011) (subpoena vs. warrant and Fourth Amendment considerations for medical records)
State v. Beavers, 290 Conn. 386 (2009) (broad discretion on expert qualification and relevance)