State v. Gray
Citations
- 342 Conn. 657
Syllabus
Convicted of numerous crimes, including felony murder, in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court. During the course of the defendant's trial, the trial court detained three eyewitnesses to the shooting, W, G, and H, who were reluctant to testify. Due to the state's difficulty in locating and serving subpoenas on W and H, the trial court issued material witness warrants pursuant to statute (§ 54-82j) to secure their appearance at trial. After completing his direct examination of W, the prosecutor requested that W be detained overnight to ensure that she return the next day for cross-examination. When W's assigned counsel indicated that W did not have overnight childcare for her daughter, the court first suggested that the state contact the Department of Children and Families but then gave W time to make childcare arrangements, which she ultimately was successful in doing. The trial court also granted the prosecutor's request to detain H for an additional night in light of H's demeanor at trial and his prior efforts to avoid the state's subpoenas. H's testimony was then delayed for another day because the testimony of certain other witnesses was prioritized, This case was originally argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson, and Justices McDonald, D'Auria, Kahn, Ecker and Keller. Thereafter, Justice Mullins was added to the panel and has read the briefs and appendices, and listened to a recording of the oral argument prior to participating in this decision. 658 MARCH, 2022 342 Conn. 657 State v. Gray but the court released H with electronic monitoring at the request of H's assigned counsel. In addition, although G initially appeared at trial pursuant to a subpoena, she failed to appear the next day because her mother was unavailable to drive her to the courthouse. The court confirmed that G was twenty-one years old and ordered that she be taken into custody pursuant to the capias statute (§
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘[i]n precluding evidence solely because it is cumulative . . . the [trial] court should exercise care to avoid precluding evidence merely because of an overlap with the evidence pre- viously admitted’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. James K.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-08-29· cited 13×
- State v. SaylesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-03-26· cited 10×
- State v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-07-01· cited 6×
- State v. PoliceSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-05-10· cited 5×
- State v. Alexande rSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-06-07· cited 5×
- State v. ZiolkowskiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-01-28· cited 3×
Cites
33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- State v. WhelanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-05· cited 393×
- California v. TybergSupreme Court· 1986-12-01· cited 383×
- State v. PeelerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-10-12· cited 157×
- New Jersey v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court· 1974-12-16· cited 137×
- State v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-04-24· cited 129×
- United States v. TavaresFirst Circuit· 2013-01-14· cited 125×
- Brunetti v. ConnecticutSupreme Court· 2007-02-20· cited 116×
- William Avery v. City of MilwaukeeSeventh Circuit· 2017-01-30· cited 116×
- State v. BrunettiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-07-11· cited 116×
- United States v. HallFirst Circuit· 2006-01-12· cited 92×
- State v. MedinaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-01-18· cited 80×
- United States v. Stacey Lynn MerktFifth Circuit· 1985-08-22· cited 76×
- United States v. GonzalesTenth Circuit· 1999-01-07· cited 72×
- Peter F. Lafrance v. George H. Bohlinger, Iii, Etc.First Circuit· 1974-06-28· cited 68×
- Skinner v. StateWyoming Supreme Court· 2001-10-30· cited 62×
- State v. SingletonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-07-12· cited 47×
- United States v. Levette VangatesEleventh Circuit· 2002-04-08· cited 45×
- State v. DanielsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-03-16· cited 44×
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.