State v. Bethea, No. Cr4-232783 (May 5, 1995)

Connecticut Superior Court

State v. Bethea, No. Cr4-232783 (May 5, 1995)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 4740

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 5, 1995

DocketNo. CR4-232783

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 4740 (State v. Bethea, No. Cr4-232783 (May 5, 1995)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bethea, No. Cr4-232783 (May 5, 1995), 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 4740 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] DECISION ON MOTION TO OBTAIN NON-TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE The State of Connecticut made the above entitled motion to have the court order defendant Lyndell Bethea to provide a specimen of saliva for testing to determine his secretive status. The determination of that status could be exculpatory for defendant if his does not match evidence seized from the victim by way of the Sex Crimes Kit. The State alleges that the evidence sought cannot be obtained from any other source. Defendant objects to the State's motion.

The court heard testimony from Ms. Mary Beth Raffin, a criminalist specializing in serology at the State Police Forensic Laboratory. Ms. Raffin testified that the advantage to the saliva specimen is that it can be obtained in a non-intrusive manner. However, in the instant case, the court had previously signed a search warrant for a blood sample for defendant, which warrant was executed and a blood sample obtained. Blood seized was to be sent to the FBI for DNA and other testing.

The court must determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the saliva sample may be of material aid in determining whether defendant committed the offense charged and that the evidence sought cannot practically be obtained from other sources. State v. Acquino, 177 Conn. 352, 353 (1979) P.B. Sec. 776.

Since the blood sample has already been obtained, it appears to the court that the saliva sample would be superfluous. Therefore, State's motion is denied.

/s/ Kulawiz, J. KULAWIZ

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] DECISION ON MOTION TO OBTAIN NON-TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE The State of Connecticut made the above entitled motion to have the court order defendant Lyndell Bethea to provide a specimen of saliva for testing to determine his secretive status. The determination of that status could be exculpatory for defendant if his does not match evidence seized from the victim by way of the Sex Crimes Kit. The State alleges that the evidence sought cannot be obtained from any other source. Defendant objects to the State's motion.

The court heard testimony from Ms. Mary Beth Raffin, a criminalist specializing in serology at the State Police Forensic Laboratory. Ms. Raffin testified that the advantage to the saliva specimen is that it can be obtained in a non-intrusive manner. However, in the instant case, the court had previously signed a search warrant for a blood sample for defendant, which warrant was executed and a blood sample obtained. Blood seized was to be sent to the FBI for DNA and other testing.

The court must determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the saliva sample may be of material aid in determining whether defendant committed the offense charged and that the evidence sought cannot practically be obtained from other sources. State v. Acquino, 177 Conn. 352, 353 (1979) P.B. Sec. 776.

Since the blood sample has already been obtained, it appears to the court that the saliva sample would be superfluous. Therefore, State's motion is denied.

/s/ Kulawiz, J. KULAWIZ

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 4740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bethea-no-cr4-232783-may-5-1995-connsuperct-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack