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 CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Connecticut v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-05-20· cited 268×
- State v. KellySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-05-08· cited 162×
- State v. VitaleSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-09-10· cited 160×
- State v. PeelerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-10-12· cited 157×
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-01-05· cited 74×
- State v. ShabazzSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-09-08· cited 63×
- State v. SandovalSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-05-13· cited 56×
- Compagnie Euralair, S. A. v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court· 1999-03-01· cited 52×
- State v. SlimskeySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-09-04· cited 49×
- State v. OsimantiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-11-09· cited 35×
- State v. William C.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-03-09· cited 25×
- State v. BarlettaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-07-30· cited 23×
- State v. MARK R.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-04-19· cited 22×
- State v. ThomasConnecticut Appellate Court· 2008-10-07· cited 16×
- State v. JordanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-06-19· cited 14×
- State v. LeniartSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2016-10-04· cited 10×
- State v. DurdekSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-10-24· cited 10×
- State v. BermudezConnecticut Appellate Court· 2020-02-18· cited 8×
- State v. ManousosSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-03-28· cited 4×
- BTS, United States, Inc. v. Exec. Perspectives, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2016-10-04· cited 3×
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.