(a) In any case involving an offense for which the punishment may be imprisonment for more than one year, the Superior Court or a judge thereof may, upon the application of the accused, or of the state in the case of a witness who is infirm and seventy-five years of age or older, order that the deposition of a witness shall be taken before a commissioner, judge or magistrate, to be designated by the court or judge, if it appears that his or her testimony will be required at trial and that, by reason of bodily infirmity, age or residence out of this state, he or she will be unable to testify at trial.
(b) Reasonable notice of the time when and place where the examination will be had and of the interrogatories to be propounded shall be given to the state's attorney or assistant state's attorney for the judicial district in which the prosecution is pending; and such attorney may, within such time as the court or judge limits, file with the clerk of the court additional interrogatories to be propounded to the witness to be examined.
(c) Depositions so taken, opened by and filed with the clerk within such time as the court or judge directs, may be used at trial.
(1949 Rev., S. 8802; 1963, P.A. 642, S. 71; P.A. 73-116, S. 27; 73-667, S. 1, 2; P.A. 74-48; P.A. 75-567, S. 34, 80; P.A. 76-436, S. 476, 681; P.A. 78-280, S. 1, 127; P.A. 80-313, S. 34; P.A. 21-102, S. 1.)
History: 1963 act updated statute, deleting provisions for court of common pleas and prosecuting attorney; P.A. 73-116 added reference to judicial districts; P.A. 73-667 changed effective date of P.A. 73-667 from October 1, 1973, to December 31, 1973; P.A. 74-48 amended section to include depositions in circuit court cases involving Class D felonies, adding reference to prosecuting attorneys and circuits; P.A. 75-567 deleted changes enacted by P.A. 74-48, except for reference to prosecuting attorneys, reflecting reorganization of judicial system in P.A. 74-183; P.A. 76-436 applied provisions to cases where punishment may be imprisonment for more than one year and substituted assistant state's attorneys for prosecuting attorneys, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 78-280 deleted reference to counties; P.A. 80-313 divided section into Subsecs. and restated provisions; P.A. 21-102 amended Subsec. (a) to add provision re witness who is infirm and 75 years of age or older, add “, judge” re deposition and “, age” re reason for inability to testify at trial, and make technical changes.
State cannot take deposition. 90 C. 381. Comment of state's attorney on accused's use of depositions held improper to extent of requiring new trial. 96 C. 165. Proper course of accused to protect his rights under statute. Id., 166, 168. Cited. 229 C. 716.
Cited. 19 CA 594; 29 CA 642; 36 CA 250; 42 CA 186; judgment reversed, see 241 C. 823.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1973–2018 · leading case:
State v. Richard P., 181 A.3d 107 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
State v. Richard P., 181 A.3d 107 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “, General Statutes §§ 54-86 l , 52-180, 52-148b(b)(1), 46b-129(k)(4) and (5), and 17a-11(f)(5).”
State v. Lamme, 563 A.2d 1372 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Lamme was under the influence of intoxicating liquor?” The defendant also suggests that expert opinion on the ultimate issue to be decided by the jury is inadmissible under General Statutes § 54-86. This claim was not raised at trial and, therefore, we will not review it.”
State v. Sullivan, 712 A.2d 919 (Conn. 1998).
· cites it 2× “) § 40-44, and General Statutes § 54-86 (a), the moving party may depose a witness only if he can demonstrate the unavailability of the witness for trial or for a hearing.”
State v. Zaporta, 650 A.2d 582 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes § 54-86 (a) provides: “In any case involving an offense for which the punishment may be imprisonment for more than one year, the superior court or a judge thereof may, upon the application of the accused, order that the deposition of a witness shall be taken…”
Veal v. Warden, 611 A.2d 911 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 2× “This conclusion was based on the trial counsel’s reason *434 ing that the state could put on psychiatric experts who could testify not only as to the lack of extreme emotional disturbance but also as to their opinions of the petitioner’s mental state or condition pursuant to…”
State v. Moynahan, 325 A.2d 199 (Conn. 1973).
“Although at the time of trial §§ 54-86 (a) and (b) were in existence, we need not determine whether these sections of the statute were purely procedural in nature and therefore not binding on the Superior Court; State Bar Assn.”
Collins v. State, 2009 OK CR 32 (Okla. Crim. App. 2009).
“412(b)(1)(c) (making exception to rape shield provisions for "evidence the exclusion of which would violate the constitutional rights of the defendant"); see also Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 54-86 { (West 2009) D.”
State v. Christiano, 617 A.2d 470 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Without such an explanation, the defendant claims that the jury would believe that the defendant and his son both had engaged in sexual relations with the victim.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.