State v. Jackson
Citations
- 334 Conn. 793
Syllabus
Convicted of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and four counts of assault in the first degree in connection with a shooting in which one person died and four others were injured, the defendant appealed, chal- lenging various evidentiary rulings and the trial court's decision to deny a motion for a continuance to allow him to retain an expert to respond to the testimony of W, whom the state belatedly disclosed to the defense and called as an expert witness on cell site location information. On 794 MARCH, 2020 334 Conn. 793 State v. Jackson the day of the shooting, the defendant and his friend, R, were driven by R's cousin to and from a housing complex where the shooting occurred. Approximately five to six months before his trial, the defendant filed a motion seeking disclosure of the expert witnesses the state intended to call and the opinions to which each witness was expected to testify. At a hearing on that motion approximately one week later, the court ordered the state to disclose to the defense any expert that it may ultimately select to testify about the proximity of the defendant's cell phone to a particular cell tower. Approximately three months later, the state provided the defense with a list of potential witnesses, including W, but did not identify him as an expert witness or describe the intended nature of his testimony. Approximately two months later, after voir dire commenced and seven days before evidence was to begin, the state provided the defense with W's resume and a copy of a certain computer software presentation that W had prepared and that purportedly charted the locations of the defendant's and R's cell phones around the time of the shooting. Thereafter, one day before evidence commenced, the defendant filed a motion in limine, seeking to preclude W's testimony. At the hearing on the defendant's motion, which the trial court conducted several days after evidence had begun, defense counsel requested that the court preclude W's testimony or,
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining March 11, 2025 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 35 351 Conn. 428 MARCH, 2025 461 State v. Dabate that state’s failure to timely disclose expert witness ‘‘rendered the defendant’s opportunity to prepare a meaningful defense effectively nonexistent’’
- it was abuse of discretion for trial court to allow state’s late disclosed expert witness to testify without first granting defendant reasonable continuance to obtain his own expert
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. RaynorSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-12-04· cited 27×
- State v. DabateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-03-11· cited 15×
- State v. FisherSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-02-10· cited 12×
- State v. HargettSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-06-14· cited 9×
- State v. KomisarjevskySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-04-12· cited 7×
- State v. Robert R.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-08-06· cited 4×
- State v. RogersSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-08-16· cited 4×
- Mercedes-Benz Financial v. 1188 Stratford Avenue, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-04-16· cited 1×
- State v.CareySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-11-23
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Connecticut v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-05-20· cited 268×
- State v. RizzoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-10-14· cited 127×
- State v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-01-11· cited 100×
- State v. FestoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-06-24· cited 76×
- State v. LopezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-01-02· cited 63×
- State v. BoydSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-04-27· cited 53×
- State v. RespassSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-05-15· cited 52×
- Galle v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation ProgramsSupreme Court· 2001-10-29· cited 48×
- State v. NelsonConnecticut Appellate Court· 2010-01-19· cited 37×
- Rullo v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-06-28· cited 32×
- State v. ARTHUR H.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-08-26· cited 25×
- State v. GunningSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1981-03-10· cited 24×
- State v. DelgadoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-09-17· cited 24×
- Brunetti v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-05-23· cited 21×
- United States v. Jonathan TurnerNinth Circuit· 2018-07-27· cited 18×
- State v. Van EckConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-04-30· cited 17×
- State v. CookeConnecticut Appellate Court· 2012-04-03· cited 8×
- State v. Norman P.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-07-17· cited 7×
- State v. JacksonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-10-03· cited 7×
- State v. PascualSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-06-05· cited 4×
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.