SC 15364 | Conn. | May 20, 1997
Lead Opinion
Opinion
This appeal is a companion to the appeal in State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57" court="Conn." date_filed="1997-05-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/connecticut-v-porter-7844874?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7844874">241 Conn. 57, 698 A.2d 739 (1997). The issues in this certified appeal are: (1) whether Connecticut should adopt as the standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1993-06-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/daubert-v-merrell-dow-pharmaceuticals-inc-112903?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="112903">509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993); and (2) whether Connecticut should abandon its traditional per se rule that polygraph evidence is inadmissible at trial. The defendant, Russell C. Hunter, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming his conviction for robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (4).
The defendant claims that: (1) the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court properly denied his request for an evidentiary hearing regarding the admissibility of polygraph evidence; and (2) in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., supra, 509 U.S. 579" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1993-06-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/daubert-v-merrell-dow-pharmaceuticals-inc-112903?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="112903">509 U.S. 579, this court should reconsider its test for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence, which is currently based on Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013" court="D.C. Cir." date_filed="1923-12-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/frye-v-united-states-8833029?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8833029">293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), and should conclude that polygraph evidence is admissible under the Daubert test. We address these precise claims in State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. 57" court="Conn." date_filed="1997-05-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/connecticut-v-porter-7844874?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7844874">241 Conn. 57, and for the reasons explained therein, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
In this opinion CALLAHAN, C. J., and NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER and MCDONALD, Js., concurred.
General Statutes § 53a-134 provides in pertinent part: “Robbery in the first degree: Class B felony, (a) A person is guilty of robbery in tire first degree when, in the course of the commission of the crime of robbery as defined in section 53a-133 or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime ... (4) displays or threatens the use of what he
We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, limited to the following issues: “Under the circumstances of this case: 1. Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court was correct in denying the defendant’s request for an evidentiary hearing regarding 1he admissibility of the defendant’s polygraph evidence?
“2. Should this court reconsider the applicability of the test for determining the admissibility of scientific evidence set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013" court="D.C. Cir." date_filed="1923-12-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/frye-v-united-states-8833029?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8833029">293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), in light of the United States Supreme Court,’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1993-06-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/daubert-v-merrell-dow-pharmaceuticals-inc-112903?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="112903">509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993)?” State v. Hunter, 236 Conn. 907" court="Conn." date_filed="1996-02-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-hunter-7844209?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7844209">236 Conn. 907, 670 A.2d 1307 (1996).
Concurrence in Part
concurring and dissenting. This appeal presents the same issue that was decided today in the
The sole issue at trial was the identification of the defendant
The pertinent questions asked during the defendant’s polygraph examination, and the indicated answers, were as follows:
“On December 6, 1992 [the day of the robbery], did you take any money out of Morcey’s Restaurant, 572 Watertown Avenue [the place of the robbery]?
“No.
“No.
“On December 6, 1992, were you inside Morcey’s Restaurant, 572 Watertown Avenue?
“No.”
In his report, based upon the polygraph examination, Kaufman concluded: “No deception was indicated in this examinee’s recorded responses to the above relevant questions and it is this polygraphist’s opinion that Russell Hunter answered all these questions truthfully.”
Several days before the defendant’s trial, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to admit the polygraph results into evidence and held that the defendant was not entitled to a full hearing on the motion. The defendant subsequently testified at his trial that he did not participate in the robbery.
As I indicated in my concurring and dissenting opinion in State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. 145-47, upon adopting the standard set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1993-06-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/daubert-v-merrell-dow-pharmaceuticals-inc-112903?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="112903">509 U.S. 579, 592-95, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), for the admissibility of scientific evidence, the trial court should be the court to determine whether the polygraph evidence is admissible.
In my view, the majority, by adopting its per se rule, which denies the defendant a right to a hearing on the admissibility of exculpatory polygraph evidence, violates his due process rights and his right to present a defense under the federal and state constitutions. See State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. 161 (Berdon, J., concurring and dissenting).
Accordingly, I dissent with respect to the issue of the admissibility of polygraph evidence.
See footnote 4 of my concurring and dissenting opinion in State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. 138-39 n.4, with respect to the inherent unreliability of cross-racial identification.