· 6/3/2025

State v. Orlando F.

Citations

  • 233 Conn. App. 1

Syllabus

Convicted, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and other crimes, the defendant appealed. He claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence, pursuant to State v. Gore (342 Conn. 129), testimony by B, a nonpercipient witness, identifying him from surveillance video foot- age she was shown in the courtroom during the trial. Held: This court declined to review the defendant's argument that the trial court should have considered that the manner in which B was shown the video was suggestive because it was the first time she had seen the footage, there having been nothing in the record to establish when B had first viewed the video evidence. This court was not persuaded that the circumstances of the defendant's case warranted the trial court's consideration of B's purported bias against him and that the admission of her testimony would result in an undue restriction of the defendant's constitutional right to confront B, as those matters, which pertained to trial tactics and the weight to be accorded to her testimony, were beyond Gore's requirement that, in determining whether a witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant than is a jury, the trial court should consider factors pertaining to the witness' familiarity with the defendant and his appearance, as well as the video's quality and the extent to which it depicts the defendant. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting B's identification testimony, which was more probative than it was prejudicial in light of her past history and familiarity with the defendant, with whom she had two children, and the defendant provided no authority to show that B's testimony was rendered unduly prejudicial because his counsel might have had to inquire into prior domestic violence between B and the defendant to be able to fully establish her bias against him. Even if this court were to assume that the admission of B's identification testimony was improper, the def

Judges: Moll; Seeley; Prescott

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.