· 6/30/2020

State v. Leniart

Citations

  • 198 Conn. App. 591

Syllabus

The defendant, who was convicted of capital felony and murder following the disappearance of the fifteen year old victim, appealed from the judgment of conviction, claiming, inter alia, that certain evidentiary rulings violated his constitutional rights to confrontation and to present a defense. At trial, the state presented testimony from A, who was serving a ten year sentence for an unrelated crime, that he and the defendant had sexually assaulted the victim, and, that when he met the defendant the following day, the defendant had confessed to killing the victim. In order to impeach A's credibility, the defendant sought to admit a videotape depicting a police officer interviewing A prior to the administration of a polygraph examination. The defendant claimed that the videotape was relevant because it showed that A had been promised favorable treatment in exchange for his cooperation. The trial court, however, excluded the videotape on the ground that it constituted inad- missible polygraph evidence under State v. Porter (241 Conn. 57). A thereafter testified, inter alia, that he hoped to receive some consider- ation from the state in exchange for his testimony. On the defendant's direct appeal, this court agreed with the defendant's evidentiary claim that the trial court had improperly excluded the videotape and found that its exclusion was harmful and, accordingly, reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. Both the state and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to our Supreme Court, which affirmed this court's conclusion that the trial court improp- erly excluded the videotape but concluded that any error was harmless and, thus, reversed the judgment of this court and remanded the case for a determination of whether the exclusion of the videotape violated the defendant's constitutional rights. Held that the trial court's exclusion of the videotape did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights: although

Judges: Prescott; Devlin; Sheldon

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.