Connecticut § 54-86k Admissibility of results of DNA analysis.

Connecticut Statutes

§ 54-86k — Admissibility of results of DNA analysis.

Connecticut § 54-86k

Title 54Criminal Procedure

Ch. 961Trial and Proceedings after Conviction

This text of Connecticut § 54-86k (Admissibility of results of DNA analysis.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86k (2026).

Text

(a)In any criminal proceeding, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing shall be deemed to be a reliable scientific technique and the evidence of a DNA profile comparison may be admitted to prove or disprove the identity of any person. This section shall not otherwise limit the introduction of any relevant evidence bearing upon any question at issue before the court. The court shall, regardless of the results of the DNA analysis, if any, consider such other relevant evidence of the identity of the accused as shall be admissible in evidence.

(b)If the results of the DNA analysis tend to exculpate the accused, the prosecuting authority shall disclose such exculpatory information or material to the accused in accordance with section 54-86c .

(c)At least twenty-one days prior to commencement of

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

(a) In any criminal proceeding, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing shall be deemed to be a reliable scientific technique and the evidence of a DNA profile comparison may be admitted to prove or disprove the identity of any person. This section shall not otherwise limit the introduction of any relevant evidence bearing upon any question at issue before the court. The court shall, regardless of the results of the DNA analysis, if any, consider such other relevant evidence of the identity of the accused as shall be admissible in evidence. (b) If the results of the DNA analysis tend to exculpate the accused, the prosecuting authority shall disclose such exculpatory information or material to the accused in accordance with section 54-86c . (c) At least twenty-one days prior to commencement of the proceeding in which the results of a DNA analysis will be offered as evidence, the party intending to offer the evidence shall notify the opposing party, in writing, of the intent to offer the analysis and shall provide or make available copies of the profiles and the report or statement to be introduced. In the event that such notice is not given, and the person proffers such evidence, then the court may in its discretion either allow the opposing party a continuance or, under the appropriate circumstances, bar the person from presenting such evidence. The period of any such continuance shall not be counted for speedy trial purposes under section 54-82c . If the opposing party intends to object to the admissibility of such evidence he shall give written notice of that fact and the basis for his objections at least ten days prior to commencement of the proceedings. (d) No blood sample submitted to the Division of Scientific Services within the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection for analysis and use as provided in this section and no results of the analysis performed shall be included in the DNA data bank established by the division pursuant to section 54-102j or otherwise used in any way with identifying information on the person whose sample was submitted. See Secs. 54-102g to 54-102 l , inclusive, re DNA analysis procedures.

Legislative History

(P.A. 94-246, S. 7; P.A. 99-218, S. 9, 16; P.A. 11-51, S. 134.) History: P.A. 99-218 amended Subsec. (d) by replacing the State Police Forensic Science Laboratory with the Division of Scientific Services within the Department of Public Safety, effective July 1, 1999; pursuant to P.A. 11-51, “Department of Public Safety” was changed editorially by the Revisors to “Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection” in Subsec. (d), effective July 1, 2011. Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to preclude DNA testing results produced by the state shortly before the trial was scheduled to begin where trial court ordered a continuance of the trial because of state's failure to comply with statute's timing requirements and defendant did not establish he was prejudiced by the late disclosure. 304 C. 383.