Porter hearing in Connecticut

2022Held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of uncharged misconduct tying the firearm used in the prior shootings to the firearm used in the murders of the victims to prove that the defendant was the individual who shot the victims: the defendant’s claim challeng- ing the relevance of J’s testimony in light of its lack of scientific reliability was unavailing, as the defendant’s failure to request a hearing pursuant to State v. Porter ( 241 Conn. 57 ) deprived the trial court of the opportu- nity to assess J’s methodology and, thus, the reliability of J’s t

2022Held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of uncharged misconduct tying the firearm used in the prior shootings to the firearm used in the murders of the victims to prove that the defendant was the individual who shot the victims: the defendant’s claim challeng- ing the relevance of J’s testimony in light of its lack of scientific reliability was unavailing, as the defendant’s failure to request a hearing pursuant to State v. Porter ( 241 Conn. 57 ) deprived the trial court of the opportu- nity to assess J’s methodology and, thus, the reliability of J’s t

2020In this opinion the other justices concurred. * The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. ** December 4, 2020, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes. 1 This court granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issues: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly con- clude that the trial court had properly denied the defendant’s motion for a Porter hearing to determine the reliability of firearm and toolmark iden

2020In this opinion the other justices concurred. * The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. ** December 4, 2020, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes. 1 This court granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issues: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly con- clude that the trial court had properly denied the defendant’s motion for a Porter hearing to determine the reliability of firearm and toolmark iden

2020In this opinion the other justices concurred. * The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. ** December 4, 2020, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes. 1 This court granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issues: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly con- clude that the trial court had properly denied the defendant’s motion for a Porter hearing to determine the reliability of firearm and toolmark iden

2020In this opinion the other justices concurred. * The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. ** December 4, 2020, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes. 1 This court granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issues: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly con- clude that the trial court had properly denied the defendant’s motion for a Porter hearing to determine the reliability of firearm and toolmark iden

2020In this opinion the other justices concurred. * The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. ** December 4, 2020, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes. 1 This court granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issues: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly con- clude that the trial court had properly denied the defendant’s motion for a Porter hearing to determine the reliability of firearm and toolmark iden

2020In this opinion the other justices concurred. * The listing of justices reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument. ** December 4, 2020, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes. 1 This court granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issues: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly con- clude that the trial court had properly denied the defendant’s motion for a Porter hearing to determine the reliability of firearm and toolmark iden

2021See, e.g., Maher v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 269 Conn. 154 , 157 n.4, 182–83, 847 A.2d 978 (2004).

2013In one line of cases, “we have concluded that certain forms of scientific evidence have become so well established that a formal Porter inquiry is rendered unnecessary . . . .” Id., 170 ; see State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. 85 n.30 , citing State v. Cline, 275 Mont. 46, 55 , 909 P.2d 1171 (1996) (ordinary fingerprint identification evidence); see also Hayes v. Decker, 263 Conn. 677, 687-89 , 822 A.2d 228 (2003) (effects of discontinuation of blood pressure medication); State v. Kirsch, 263 Conn. 390, 405 , 820 A.2d 236 (2003) (reliability of alcohol blood testing done at hospital well establ

2024Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and held that scientific evidence should be subjected to a flexible test, with differing factors that are applied on a case-by-case basis, to determine the reliability of the scientific evidence.’’ State v. Reid, 254 Conn. 540, 545 , 757 A.2d 482 (2000). ‘‘A Porter analysis involves a two part inquiry that assesses the reliability and rele- vance of the witness’ methods. . . .

2024Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and held that scientific evidence should be subjected to a flexible test, with differing factors that are applied on a case-by-case basis, to determine the reliability of the scientific evidence.’’ State v. Reid, 254 Conn. 540, 545 , 757 A.2d 482 (2000). ‘‘A Porter analysis involves a two part inquiry that assesses the reliability and rele- vance of the witness’ methods. . . .

2010Without such an articulation, the trial court is entirely ill-equipped to determine if the scientific evidence is reliable upon consideration of the various Porter factors.” Prentice v. Dalco Electric, Inc., 280 Conn. 336, 345 , 907 A.2d 1204 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1266 , 127 S. Ct. 1494 , 167 L.

2010Without such an articulation, the trial court is entirely ill-equipped to determine if the scientific evidence is reliable upon consideration of the various Porter factors.” Prentice v. Dalco Electric, Inc., 280 Conn. 336, 345 , 907 A.2d 1204 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1266 , 127 S. Ct. 1494 , 167 L.

2014See State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. 146 (‘‘‘[t]he inquiry . . . is, we empha- size, a flexible one’ ’’); see also State v. Griffin, 273 Conn. 266, 276 , 869 A.2d 640 (2005) (acknowledging that Porter requires flexible, case-by-case approach); Hayes v. Decker, 263 Conn. 677 , 685 n.2, 822 A.2d 228 (2003) (trial court found to be in error for applying Porter inquiry mechanically).

2014See State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. 146 (‘‘‘[t]he inquiry . . . is, we empha- size, a flexible one’ ’’); see also State v. Griffin, 273 Conn. 266, 276 , 869 A.2d 640 (2005) (acknowledging that Porter requires flexible, case-by-case approach); Hayes v. Decker, 263 Conn. 677 , 685 n.2, 822 A.2d 228 (2003) (trial court found to be in error for applying Porter inquiry mechanically).

2025A Porter analysis involves a two part inquiry that assesses the reliability and relevance of the witness’ methods.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97, 124 , 156 A.3d 506 (2017).

2025A Porter analysis involves a two part inquiry that assesses the reliability and relevance of the witness’ methods.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97, 124 , 156 A.3d 506 (2017).

2013In one line of cases, “we have concluded that certain forms of scientific evidence have become so well established that a formal Porter inquiry is rendered unnecessary . . . .” Id., 170 ; see State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. 85 n.30 , citing State v. Cline, 275 Mont. 46, 55 , 909 P.2d 1171 (1996) (ordinary fingerprint identification evidence); see also Hayes v. Decker, 263 Conn. 677, 687-89 , 822 A.2d 228 (2003) (effects of discontinuation of blood pressure medication); State v. Kirsch, 263 Conn. 390, 405 , 820 A.2d 236 (2003) (reliability of alcohol blood testing done at hospital well establ

2013In one line of cases, “we have concluded that certain forms of scientific evidence have become so well established that a formal Porter inquiry is rendered unnecessary . . . .” Id., 170 ; see State v. Porter, supra, 241 Conn. 85 n.30 , citing State v. Cline, 275 Mont. 46, 55 , 909 P.2d 1171 (1996) (ordinary fingerprint identification evidence); see also Hayes v. Decker, 263 Conn. 677, 687-89 , 822 A.2d 228 (2003) (effects of discontinuation of blood pressure medication); State v. Kirsch, 263 Conn. 390, 405 , 820 A.2d 236 (2003) (reliability of alcohol blood testing done at hospital well establ

2014The Appellate Court relied on our decision in Klein v. Norwalk Hospital, 299 Conn. 241 , 9 A.3d 364 (2010), a case applying a Porter analysis.

2014The Appellate Court relied on our decision in Klein v. Norwalk Hospital, 299 Conn. 241 , 9 A.3d 364 (2010), a case applying a Porter analysis.

2020The Appellate Court, however, in Arthur, considered this issue when the petitioner alleged a claim for ‘‘ineffective assistance of counsel because [his counsel had] failed to request a Porter hearing regarding the cell phone evidence offered by the state to show the petitioner’s movements on the night of the shooting.’’ Id., 619.

2020The Appellate Court, however, in Arthur, considered this issue when the petitioner alleged a claim for ‘‘ineffective assistance of counsel because [his counsel had] failed to request a Porter hearing regarding the cell phone evidence offered by the state to show the petitioner’s movements on the night of the shooting.’’ Id., 619.

2020In State v. Griffin, supra, 273 Conn. 266 , our Supreme Court recited the analytic framework for determining whether a Porter analysis is necessary and summarized its decision in Reid and Hasan. ‘‘[O]ur initial inquiry is whether the [evidence] at issue . . . is the type of evi- dence contemplated by Porter. . . .

2020In State v. Griffin, supra, 273 Conn. 266 , our Supreme Court recited the analytic framework for determining whether a Porter analysis is necessary and summarized its decision in Reid and Hasan. ‘‘[O]ur initial inquiry is whether the [evidence] at issue . . . is the type of evi- dence contemplated by Porter. . . .

2010Without such an articulation, the trial court is entirely ill-equipped to determine if the scientific evidence is reliable upon consideration of the various Porter factors.” Prentice v. Dalco Electric, Inc., 280 Conn. 336, 345 , 907 A.2d 1204 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1266 , 127 S. Ct. 1494 , 167 L.

2010Without such an articulation, the trial court is entirely ill-equipped to determine if the scientific evidence is reliable upon consideration of the various Porter factors.” Prentice v. Dalco Electric, Inc., 280 Conn. 336, 345 , 907 A.2d 1204 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1266 , 127 S. Ct. 1494 , 167 L.

2010Without such an articulation, the trial court is entirely ill-equipped to determine if the scientific evidence is reliable upon consideration of the various Porter factors.” Prentice v. Dalco Electric, Inc., 280 Conn. 336, 345 , 907 A.2d 1204 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1266 , 127 S. Ct. 1494 , 167 L.

2010Without such an articulation, the trial court is entirely ill-equipped to determine if the scientific evidence is reliable upon consideration of the various Porter factors.” Prentice v. Dalco Electric, Inc., 280 Conn. 336, 345 , 907 A.2d 1204 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1266 , 127 S. Ct. 1494 , 167 L.