Skip to main content

State v. Best

Citations

  • 337 Conn. 312

Syllabus

Convicted of murder, attempt to commit murder, and assault in the first degree in connection with the shooting of his girlfriend's daughter, O, and O's roommate, J, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting into evidence four photographs depicting the bloody interior of the car in which O and J drove to the hospital after the shooting. On the day of the shooting, O and J arrived at the house where the defendant and his girlfriend lived and found them arguing inside a locked bedroom. O and J demanded that the defendant open the bedroom door. When he did, he shot O and J each once in the chest. O and J fled to O's car and drove to the hospital, where J died as a result of her injuries. At trial, the state introduced into evidence, over defense counsel's objection, the four photographs as full exhibits. On appeal to this court, the defendant claimed that the trial court had improperly admitted the photographs because they were not relevant to the crimes with which he was charged and, alternatively, because they were unduly prejudicial insofar as their graphic nature had a tendency to arouse the jurors' passions. Held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence the photographs depicting the bloody interior of the car that O and J used to flee the shooting: the photographs were relevant because the amount of blood loss that O and J suffered immediately after the shooting and the corres- ponding severity of their wounds were probative of certain elements of the charged offenses, namely, whether the wounds the defendant inflicted were grievous enough to cause J's death and serious physical injury to O, and the defendant's intent as to those offenses; moreover, the photographs were relevant because they corroborated O's testimony at trial about the events that transpired immediately following the shoot- ing; furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concludin

How courts have described this case

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

  • ‘‘[t]he test for determining whether evidence is unduly prejudicial is not whether it is damaging to the [party against whom the evidence is offered] but whether it will improperly arouse the emotions of the jur[ors]’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

26 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.