State v. Reardon
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | Before HOUSE; COTTER |
| Citation | 376 A.2d 65,172 Conn. 593 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. James REARDON. |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1977 |
Page 65
v.
James REARDON.
Decided April 5, 1977.
[172 Conn. 594] David S. Golub, Stamford, for appellant (defendant).
Richard F. Jacobson, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Donald A.
Page 66
Browne, State's Atty., and Walter D. Flanagan, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).Before [172 Conn. 593] HOUSE, C. J., and COTTER, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.
[172 Conn. 594] COTTER, Associate Justice.
The defendant was charged with unlawfully possessing marijuana with intent to sell or dispense it in violation of Public Acts 1973, No. 73-681, § 26(a) (General Statutes § 19-480) and, in a second count, with having marijuana under his control in violation of Public Acts 1972, No. 72-278, § 26(b) (General Statutes § 19-481). In this appeal from his conviction on both counts he has briefed and argued error in the admission of certain evidence and in the court's instructions to the jury.
In the course of the trial, Dr. Charles N. Reading, one of three toxicologists employed by the state department of health, testified that in his opinion, based upon laboratory tests, samples of material seized from the defendant under a search warrant were marijuana. 1 The defendant's counsel objected and took exception to the admission [172 Conn. 595] of Dr. Reading's identification testimony as hearsay "on the basis that this is not the man who performed the tests. Miss Pernitis is the individual who performed the test. And I think any testimony with respect to this man is totally hearsay." The defendant claims in his brief and argument on appeal in this court that "Dr. Reading's conclusions were undeniably unsupported hearsay." We do not agree.
The state toxicological laboratory, pursuant to § 19-483 of the General Statutes, is under the direction of the state's chief toxicologist, who "shall establish the standards for analytical tests to be conducted with respect to controlled drugs . . . by qualified professional toxicologists and chemists operating at his direction and shall have the general responsibility for supervising such analytical personnel in the performance of such tests." It is staffed by three toxicologists, including Dr. Reading, and twenty-four chemists, and receives approximately 20,000 cases each year. The chemists perform the actual analyses of material under the supervision of the toxicologists. In each case a toxicologist takes the material to be analyzed, gives it to the chemist involved, directs the work to be done, thereafter received the analyst's report, discusses the results with the chemist and makes an "independent decision as to what has been accomplished."
Dr. Reading testified at length on direct and cross-examination as to the manner in which drug identifications were conducted in the state toxicological laboratory in this and other similar cases. 2 [172 Conn. 596] A microscopic test, a thin-layer chromatography test and a chemical test were conducted. He readily admitted under cross-examination that he did not see the results of the microscopic test conducted by the chemist, Miss Pernitis, that this test was not absolute and that probably hundreds of other plants have cystolithic hairs. The thin-layer chromatography test separates the chemically active ingredients of the sample material upon a small, treated celluloid plate using a volatile solvent; a plate using the sample material is prepared simultaneously with a plate using a known marijuana sample as a standard, so that the two plates can be visually compared. The chemical test treats the separated ingredients with a developer
Page 67
which turns any THC present a distinctive pink color. Dr. Reading testified that the thin-layer test is a specific test indicative of marijuana containing THC, that he personally observed the developed plates and that this test alone is sufficient to establish the presence of marijuana while the microscopic test is not absolute.Because Dr. Reading, in answer to a question on cross-examination, stated: "My opinion is based upon the summation of all the examinations," the defendant argues: "Thus, it is evident that at least part of Dr. Reading's opinion was based solely on Miss Pernitis' report to him of her results." We do not agree, even though at that point the defendant concedes that at least a part of that opinion was so based, that it was improperly admitted. There was testimony by Dr. Reading before the jury that he had personal knowledge upon which to rely in forming his opinion, including personal knowledge of the identity of the tested material, since he received it from the safe and gave it to the chemist for testing; [172 Conn. 597] personal knowledge of the procedures used to identify the material, since he directed the chemist as to what tests should be done; most importantly, he personally observed the results of the thin-layer chromatography and chemical tests, which he testified conclusively identified the presence of marijuana containing THC. He also testified, inter alia, that he had examined plantlike material for the presence of marijuana literally thousands of times, that he observed Miss Pernitis as she performed the tests although he did not see each detail, that her desk was approximately twelve feet from his and that she brought him the rough notes from which the final report was completed. He also testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kurvin
...the substance of the written request or properly and adequately covered the specific subject matter of the exception. State v. Reardon, 172 Conn. 593, 602, 376 A.2d 65 (1977); State v. Huot, 170 Conn. 463, 465, 365 A.2d 1144 (1976). In the absence of a request or an exception, to warrant re......
-
State v. Green
...380 U.S. 400, 403, 85 S. Ct. 1065, 13 L. Ed. 2d 923 (1965); State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683, 707, 529 A.2d 1245 (1987); State v. Reardon, 172 Conn. 593, 599±n600, 376 A.2d 65 (1977). It is expressly protected by the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution; Davis v.......
-
State v. Hufford, No. 12954
...U.S. 400, 403, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1067, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683, 707, 529 A.2d 1245 (1987); State v. Reardon, 172 Conn. 593, 599-600, 376 A.2d 65 (1977), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1903, 95 L.Ed.2d 509 (1987). It is expressly protected by the sixth and......
-
State v. Baker
...the defendant of a fundamental right or a fair trial. State v. Griffin, 175 [182 Conn. 65] Conn. 155, 397 A.2d 89; State v. Reardon, 172 Conn. 593, 602, 376 A.2d 65. In evaluating such claims, we apply the well-established rule that individual instructions are not to be judged in artificial......
-
State v. Kurvin
...the substance of the written request or properly and adequately covered the specific subject matter of the exception. State v. Reardon, 172 Conn. 593, 602, 376 A.2d 65 (1977); State v. Huot, 170 Conn. 463, 465, 365 A.2d 1144 (1976). In the absence of a request or an exception, to warrant re......
-
State v. Green
...380 U.S. 400, 403, 85 S. Ct. 1065, 13 L. Ed. 2d 923 (1965); State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683, 707, 529 A.2d 1245 (1987); State v. Reardon, 172 Conn. 593, 599±n600, 376 A.2d 65 (1977). It is expressly protected by the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution; Davis v.......
-
State v. Hufford, No. 12954
...U.S. 400, 403, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1067, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683, 707, 529 A.2d 1245 (1987); State v. Reardon, 172 Conn. 593, 599-600, 376 A.2d 65 (1977), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1903, 95 L.Ed.2d 509 (1987). It is expressly protected by the sixth and......
-
State v. Baker
...the defendant of a fundamental right or a fair trial. State v. Griffin, 175 [182 Conn. 65] Conn. 155, 397 A.2d 89; State v. Reardon, 172 Conn. 593, 602, 376 A.2d 65. In evaluating such claims, we apply the well-established rule that individual instructions are not to be judged in artificial......