State v. King
| Citation | 591 A.2d 813,218 Conn. 747 |
| Decision Date | 21 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 13727,13727 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Roy A. KING. |
David J. Burke, Sp. Public Defender, with whom were Pamela K. Elkow and, on the brief, Peter A. Stroili and Michael A. Fitzpatrick, Sp. Public Defenders, for appellant (defendant).
Richard F. Jacobson, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Donald A. Browne, State's Atty., and Gary Nicholson, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (State).
Before SHEA, CALLAHAN, GLASS, HULL and BORDEN, JJ.
The defendant, Roy A. King, was convicted of the crimes of attempted murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-54a(a), assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59(a)(3) and arson in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-111(a)(2). In State v. King, 216 Conn. 585, 603-604, 583 A.2d 896 (1990), in which we set forth the relevant facts in detail, we ordered a new trial as to the counts of attempted murder and assault in the first degree. We also ordered further proceedings as to the arson count because we concluded that the trial court improperly had failed to order the production of a report prepared by a state police officer concerning interviews that the officer had conducted with certain inmates and that the trial court had failed to conduct an in camera inspection of that report. Id., 599-600. Specifically, we ordered the trial court to answer three questions concerning the report: (1) whether the report in question was a "statement" under Practice Book § 749; (2) if so, whether all of the statement or any portion of it should have been disclosed pursuant to Practice Book §§ 752 and 753; and (3) if all or a portion of the statement should have been disclosed, whether the defendant was prejudiced by the nondisclosure. Id., 599.
On remand, the trial court conducted the required examination and concluded that the report was a "statement" under § 749 and that a portion of it should have been disclosed, but that the defendant had not been harmed by his inability to gain access to the undisclosed material. We granted the defendant's motion to file a supplemental brief challenging the trial court's findings, but limited our review to the question of whether the trial court properly determined that the nondisclosure of the information in the report did not prejudice the defendant.
We have reviewed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chyung
...added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. King , 216 Conn. 585, 593–94, 583 A.2d 896 (1990), on appeal after remand, 218 Conn. 747, 591 A.2d 813 (1991). Rather, one acts recklessly when one "is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that [a particu......
-
State v. Figueroa
...what weight to accord the witness' testimony. State v. King, 216 Conn. 585, 592, 583 A.2d 896 (1990), on appeal after remand, 218 Conn. 747, 591 A.2d 813 (1991); State v. Rawls, 198 Conn. 111, 118, 502 A.2d 374 (1985). "The exclusion of evidence from the jury is ... a drastic sanction, one ......
-
State v. Prioleau
...unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. State v. King, 216 Conn. 585, 603, 583 A.2d 896 (1990), on appeal after remand, 218 Conn. 747, 591 A.2d 813 (1991). Although it is true that all adverse evidence is damaging to the defendant's case, "[t]here are situations where the potential pre......
-
State v. Campfield
...227 Conn. 301, 313, 630 A.2d 593 (1993); State v. King, 216 Conn. 585, 594-95, 583 A.2d 896 (1990), on appeal after remand, 218 Conn. 747, 591 A.2d 813 (1991).4 "Although the Connecticut constitution does not include a double jeopardy provision, the due process guarantee of article first, §......
-
A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
...236, 157 A.3d 628 (2017). [537] Id. at 246 (quoting State v. King, 216 Conn. 585, 593–94, 583 A.2d 896 (1990), on appeal after remand, 218 Conn. 747, 591 A.2d 813 (1991)). [538] 180 Conn. 382, 405, 429 A.2d 919 (1980). [539] Id. at 256-57. [540] Id. at 258. [541] 184 Conn. 400, 404 n.2, 439......
-
A Servey of Criminal Law Opinion
...236, 157 A.3d 628 (2017). [537] Id. at 246 (quoting State v. King, 216 Conn. 585, 593-94, 583 A.2d 896 (1990), on appeal after remand, 218 Conn. 747, 591 A.2d 813 (1991)). [538] 180 Conn. 382, 405, 429 A.2d 919 (1980). [539] Id. at 256-57. [540] Id. at 258. [541] 184 Conn. 400, 404 n.2, 439......