Summary
This document is a concurrence and dissent by Chief Justice Robinson, joined by Justice Mullins, in State v. Lebrick, a Connecticut criminal case involving the admission of prior testimony from an unavailable witness. The opinion addresses whether the state made a diligent, reasonable, and good-faith effort to locate the witness for trial under the Confrontation Clause and Connecticut hearsay law. The concurrence and dissent would affirm the defendant’s conviction and reject the majority’s conclusion that the state’s efforts were insufficient.
Questions Presented
- Whether the state made a diligent, reasonable, and good-faith effort to procure Parks's in-court testimony such that she was unavailable for Confrontation Clause purposes.
- Whether admission of Parks's prior testimony from the defendant's probable cause hearing violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.
- Whether admission of the testimony of the state's firearm and tool-mark expert violated the Confrontation Clause.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (17)
- State v. Lebrick, 179 Conn. App. 221, 235-36, 178 A.3d 1064 (2018)(disagreed with)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004)(followed)
- State v. Kirby, 280 Conn. 361, 364 n.1, 908 A.2d 506 (2006)(followed)
- State v. Rivera, 221 Conn. 58, 61-67, 602 A.2d 571 (1992)(followed)
- State v. Frye, 182 Conn. 476, 480-81, 438 A.2d 735 (1980)(followed)
- State v. Lopez, 239 Conn. 56, 75, 77-78, 681 A.2d 950 (1996)(followed)
- United States v. Smith, 928 F.3d 1215, 1226-31 (11th Cir. 2019)(followed)
- Hardy v. Cross, 565 U.S. 65, 67-71, 132 S. Ct. 490, 181 L. Ed. 2d 468 (2011)(followed)
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74-76, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597 (1980)(limited)
- Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 723-25, 88 S. Ct. 1318, 20 L. Ed. 2d 255 (1968)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 17.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…