Skip to main content

State v. White

Citations

  • 334 Conn. 742

Syllabus

Convicted of the crime of assault in the first degree in connection with an incident in which he attacked the victim with a box cutter, the defendant appealed. Immediately after the attack, the victim described the assailant to the police as a white male wearing a red hooded sweatshirt, and the police recovered a red hooded sweatshirt and a box cutter near the crime scene. The police subsequently were notified that the defendant's DNA profile was a potential match to DNA taken from the recovered evidence. A detective, P, compiled a photographic array, and another detective administered the array to the victim at the police station outside of P's presence. The victim identified the defendant from the array and wrote on his photograph that she was ''pretty certain'' that he was the man who had attacked her. Ten to fifteen minutes later, the victim met with P and, unprompted by either detective, stated that, although she had written ''pretty certain'' on the photograph, she was ''absolutely certain'' that the defendant was her assailant. The victim then provided a written statement to P, in which she reiterated that she meant that she was absolutely certain about her identification of the defendant as her assailant, even though she previously had indicated that she was pretty certain. The defendant was arrested, and he retained private counsel to represent him, using funds provided by his wife to pay for attorney's fees and to retain an expert, C, on eyewitness identification. After jury selection began, the state gave notice of its intent to introduce DNA evidence and requested that the court order the defendant to submit to a DNA sample. The court granted the state's request but continued the trial to allow the defendant an opportunity to reframe his defense and to locate a DNA expert. The defendant then filed a motion requesting that the court order public funding so he could retain a DNA expert, claiming that he was indigent and that he was constitutionally entitle

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • granting parties permission to file supplemental briefs to address effect of decision released after initial briefs filed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

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

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

26 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.