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 CourtListenerCited 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.
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1975-06-30· cited 11,585×
- Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court· 1972-12-06· cited 7,056×
- Manson v. BrathwaiteSupreme Court· 1977-06-16· cited 5,119×
- Ake v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1985-02-26· cited 3,332×
- Perry v. New HampshireSupreme Court· 2012-01-11· cited 846×
- Pamela B. v. MentSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-03-31· cited 501×
- State v. HendersonSupreme Court of New Jersey· 2011-08-24· cited 487×
- State v. SinghSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-03-26· cited 212×
- State v. KellySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-05-08· cited 162×
- State v. LedbetterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-09-27· cited 145×
- State v. Lawson/JamesOregon Supreme Court· 2012-11-29· cited 143×
- Pellegrino v. O'NeillSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1984-07-17· cited 85×
- State v. LedbetterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1981-12-29· cited 61×
- Bryant v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-03-10· cited 53×
- Pool v. BellSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-01-03· cited 48×
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-09-04· cited 40×
- Gipson v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-08-21· cited 33×
- Hicks v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-06-24· cited 26×
- ST. PAUL TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC. v. KuehlSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-01-05· cited 26×
- State v. MartinezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-04-27· cited 22×
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.