State v. Gore
Citations
- 342 Conn. 129
Syllabus
Pursuant to the applicable provision (§ 7-3 (a)) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, testimony in the form of an opinion is generally inadmissible if it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. Pursuant further to this court's decision in State v. Finan (275 Conn. 60), lay opinion testimony identifying a defendant in video surveillance foot- age had been deemed inadmissible when the identification embraced an ultimate issue. Convicted of the crimes of murder and criminal possession of a firearm in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court improperly had admitted the testimony of P, a police officer, that C, a close friend of the defendant, made a statement identifying the defendant in a still photograph taken from a surveillance video of the shooting. At the start of the defendant's trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine, seeking to preclude the state from introducing C's statement to the police identi- fying the defendant in the surveillance video and still photograph. The trial court ruled that C's identification of the defendant in the surveillance video would constitute lay opinion testimony concerning an ultimate issue and thus was inadmissible under § 7-3 (a) of the Code of Evidence. The court, however, left open the possibility that the state could intro- duce C's identification of the defendant in the still photograph if the state were able to demonstrate that C had, independently of the video, identified the subject depicted in the still photograph as the defendant. During C's testimony at trial, C denied that he ever had identified the defendant in the still photograph, and P testified, in accordance with the court's ruling, that C had told him that the subject in the still photo- graph was the defendant. During deliberations, the jury asked the court if it could provide the jury with a magnifying glass. Over defense counsel's objection, t
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘[t]here is no question . . . concerning our power to take judicial notice of files of the Superior Court, whether the file is from the case at bar or otherwise’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
45 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court· 1972-12-06· cited 7,056×
- Beech Aircraft Corp. v. RaineySupreme Court· 1988-12-12· cited 736×
- State v. WhelanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-05· cited 393×
- California v. TybergSupreme Court· 1986-12-01· cited 383×
- State v. DeJesusSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-08-19· cited 196×
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-12-19· cited 163×
- Stringer v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court· 1997-11-20· cited 148×
- Ex Parte RieberSupreme Court of Alabama· 1995-05-19· cited 146×
- State v. LedbetterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-09-27· cited 145×
- Terry A. Ledford, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Acting Secretary of Veterans AffairsFederal Circuit· 1998-02-12· cited 132×
- United States v. JackmanFirst Circuit· 1995-02-09· cited 128×
- United States v. Anthony LapierreNinth Circuit· 1993-08-19· cited 116×
- In Re Franklin National Bank Securities LitigationE.D. New York· 1979-08-03· cited 113×
- People v. RussellNew York Court of Appeals· 1992-05-07· cited 96×
- United States v. Carl FarnsworthEighth Circuit· 1984-03-14· cited 88×
- United States v. Michael Emmett BeckNinth Circuit· 2005-08-10· cited 79×
- Karp v. Urban Redevelopment CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1972-03-22· cited 77×
- Washington v. ScottSupreme Court· 1995-11-27· cited 75×
- United States v. Gary Thomas ButcherNinth Circuit· 1977-07-15· cited 74×
- United States v. Willie Calhoun, A/K/A Calvin CalhounSixth Circuit· 1976-11-02· cited 73×
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.