State v. Merritt

659 A.2d 706, 233 Conn. 302, 1995 Conn. LEXIS 143
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedMay 30, 1995
Docket15045
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 659 A.2d 706 (State v. Merritt) 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. Merritt, 659 A.2d 706, 233 Conn. 302, 1995 Conn. LEXIS 143 (Colo. 1995).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The sole question in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court was correct in concluding that the admission of testimony by an East Lyme police officer concerning the administration and results of a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test1 in a prosecution for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (1) was harmless error. The Appellate Court determined that the trial court had “abused its discretion” by admitting the officer’s testimony because the state had failed to introduce evidence in the trial court establishing the general acceptance of the HGN test in the scientific community pursuant to Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). State v. Merritt, 36 Conn. App. 76, 91, 647 A.2d 1021 (1994).

The Appellate Court proceeded to review the other evidence presented at trial, however, and stated that it could not conclude that the testimony concerning the HGN test had affected the outcome of the trial and concluded, therefore, that its admission was harmless. Id., 93. We granted the defendant’s petition to appeal the merits of the Appellate Court’s conclusion.2 After [304]*304examining the record on appeal and after carefully considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Related

State v. Garrison
213 Conn. App. 786 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2022)
State v. Tenay
Connecticut Appellate Court, 2014
State v. Weed
984 A.2d 1116 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2009)
State of Connecticut v. Hall
954 A.2d 213 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2008)
State v. Balbi
874 A.2d 288 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2005)
State v. Hinds
861 A.2d 1219 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2004)
State v. Commins
850 A.2d 1074 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2004)
State v. Pjura
789 A.2d 1124 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2002)
State v. Payne
777 A.2d 731 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2001)
State v. Russo
773 A.2d 965 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2001)
Murphy v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
757 A.2d 561 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2000)
State v. Gibson
742 A.2d 397 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1999)
State v. Grenier
739 A.2d 751 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1999)
State v. Portee
740 A.2d 868 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1999)
State v. Jones
721 A.2d 903 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)
State v. Gracia
719 A.2d 1196 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)
State v. Carlson
720 A.2d 886 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Basso v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, No. Cv97 0402159 (Apr. 14, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4311 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
State v. Marshall
694 A.2d 816 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1997)
State v. Rodriguez
692 A.2d 846 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
659 A.2d 706, 233 Conn. 302, 1995 Conn. LEXIS 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-merritt-conn-1995.