State v. King

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. King

591 A.2d 813, 218 Conn. 747, 1991 Conn. LEXIS 260

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedMay 21, 1991

Docket13727

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 591 A.2d 813 (State v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. King, 591 A.2d 813, 218 Conn. 747, 1991 Conn. LEXIS 260 (Colo. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Callahan, J.

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 [749]*749motion 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 defendant’s and the state’s briefs on this issue and conclude that the trial court properly found that the failure to disclose did not prejudice the defendant. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985) (undisclosed evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed). The defendant, therefore, is not entitled to a retrial on the arson count.

The judgment of guilty of arson in the first degree is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

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

Callahan, J.

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 [749]*749motion 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 defendant’s and the state’s briefs on this issue and conclude that the trial court properly found that the failure to disclose did not prejudice the defendant. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985) (undisclosed evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed). The defendant, therefore, is not entitled to a retrial on the arson count.

The judgment of guilty of arson in the first degree is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 A.2d 813, 218 Conn. 747, 1991 Conn. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-king-conn-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack