Skip to main content

State v. Ashby

Citations

  • 336 Conn. 452

Syllabus

Convicted of the crimes of capital felony, murder, felony murder, sexual assault in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree in connection with the stabbing and strangulation of the victim in her apartment, the defendant appealed to this court. The police arrested the defendant when his DNA profile was matched to DNA taken from the victim's vaginal swab, and, after the defendant was confronted with that evidence, he gave the police a written confession. Evidence presented at trial established that a second, unidentified male also contributed to the DNA on the victim's vaginal swab, and unidenti- fied male DNA also was discovered on the doorframe of the victim's bedroom and in saliva found on the victim's shoulder. Prior to the defendant's trial, P, a jailhouse informant who was incarcerated with the defendant, wrote a letter to W, a detective with the Hartford Police Department, indicating that he had information about the defendant that would be useful to W and referencing an unrelated criminal case pending against the defendant. W subsequently met with P at the prison, where they discussed the defendant's involvement in the victim's death, whether P might receive a benefit for providing additional information, The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker. Although Justice Palmer was not present when the case was argued before the court, he has read the briefs and appendices, and listened to a recording of the oral argument prior to partici- pating in this decision. 336 Conn. 452 APRIL, 2021 453 State v. Ashby and whether P would be willing to wear a wire. When W did not contact P again after the meeting, P informed the defendant of the meeting, and the defendant devised a ruse intended to un

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • observ- ing that this court may presume that legislature was aware of its decision interpreting statute when legislature later passed statutory amendment
  • trial court may properly exercise its discretion ‘‘to admit forensic evidence demonstrating the pres- ence of a third party at a crime scene’’ while simultaneously ‘‘act[ing] within its discretion by declining to give a third-party culpability instruction’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

111 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.