Skip to main content

State v. Walker

Citations

  • 212 A.3d 1244
  • 332 Conn. 678

Syllabus

Convicted of the crimes of felony murder, manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a pistol or revolver in connection with the shoot- ing death of the victim, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that his federal constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him had been violated by the admission of certain evidence connecting him to the shooting. At trial, a supervisory forensic analyst employed by the state, D, testified that the defendant was a major contributor to the DNA on a bandana that had been found at the crime scene and that allegedly had been worn by the person who shot the victim. In conjunction with D's testimony, the state also introduced into evidence a written report signed by D containing specific numerical DNA profiles from the bandana and a postarrest buccal swab of the defendant's mouth that had previously been conducted pursuant to a court order. D testified that, although she analyzed the DNA on the bandana and conducted the ultimate comparison, the numerical DNA profile from the defendant's buccal swab had been generated by another forensic analyst or analysts. Although D had neither participated in nor observed the analysis of the defendant's buccal swab, D testified that she had received paperwork showing that standard laboratory proce- dures had been followed and explicitly swore to the accuracy of the resulting numerical DNA profile. On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant claimed that the evidence regarding the numerical DNA profile that had been presented through D contained testimonial hearsay and that he had been deprived of his right to confrontation because the state had failed to call a witness with personal knowledge of the testing of the buccal swab. The Appellate Court rejected that claim, concluding that, because D had conducted the ultimate analysis and made the resulting findings that connected the defendant's

Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.