Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 54 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · Chapter 961 — Trial and Proceedings after Conviction
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86b (2026)

Right of accused to examine statements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In any criminal prosecution, after a witness called by the prosecution has testified on direct examination, the court shall on motion of the defendant order the prosecution to produce any statement oral or written of the witness in the possession of the prosecution which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified, and the court shall order said statement to be delivered directly to the defendant for his examination and use.

(b) If the prosecution fails to comply with the order of the court, the court shall strike from the record the testimony of the witness and the trial shall proceed unless the court in its discretion shall determine that the interests of justice require that a mistrial be declared.

(1969, P.A. 680.)

Cited. 159 C. 264. Held unconstitutional, but assuming constitutional, procedure found to comply. 166 C. 593. Cited. 200 C. 323; 202 C. 259; 211 C. 555. Destruction of tapes discussed. 214 C. 161. Cited. 215 C. 257; 221 C. 300; 223 C. 731; 227 C. 641; 229 C. 716; 231 C. 195.

Cited 10 CA 103. Destruction of tapes held to be in bad faith; burden on state to show defendant not prejudiced. 14 CA 108. Cited. 20 CA 586; 25 CA 255; Id., 503; 29 CA 68; judgment reversed, see 227 C. 566; Id., 304; Id., 455; 32 CA 483; 46 CA 118; Id., 545.

Cited. 42 CS 10; Id., 291.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases, 1970–1999 · leading case: State v. Clemente, 353 A.2d 723 (Conn. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Clemente, 353 A.2d 723 (Conn. 1974). · cites it 80× “General Statutes § 54-86b entitles defendants in criminal prosecutions to examine relevant statements made to the prosecution by the witnesses against them.”
State v. Cain, 613 A.2d 804 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 27× “3 The defendant claims that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be reversed because the unavailability of the tape recording of the victim’s 911 telephone call and the failure of the trial court to strike the testimony of the victim in light of that unavailability…”
State v. Johnson, 571 A.2d 79 (Conn. 1990). · cites it 18× “Faced with the fact that the destruction of the tapes would render impossible the state’s compliance with General Statutes § 54-86b 4 and Practice Book § 752 et *165 seq.”
State v. Belle, 576 A.2d 139 (Conn. 1990). · cites it 12× “According to the defendant, the state’s conse *263 quent failure to produce the statements pursuant to General Statutes § 54-86b 5 and Practice Book § 752 et seq.”
State v. DellaCamera, 353 A.2d 750 (Conn. 1974). · cites it 18× “[the witness] *560 on April 13,17,18, 21, 23 and 30 in accordance with the provisions of Public Act 680 [General Statutes § 54-86b].” The court denied the motion.”
State v. Williamson, 540 A.2d 386 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 13× “” The discovery of prosecution witnesses' statements is governed by General Statutes § 54-86b, which provides in pertinent part: “In any criminal prosecution, after a witness called by the prosecution has testified on direct examination, the court shall on motion of the…”
State v. Jones, 615 A.2d 149 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992). · cites it 12× “He claims that the trial court improperly (1) refused to strike the entire testimony of the state’s key witness pursuant to Practice Book § 755 and General Statutes § 54-86b, 1 (2) determined that the prosecutor struck the first two minority jurors for neutral reasons, and then…”
State v. Cepeda, 723 A.2d 331 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 8× “nduct a Batson 5 hearing concerning the state’s use of a peremptory challenge on a prospective juror, (3) admitted uncharged misconduct that did not bear a sufficient relation to the charges to have any probative value, (4) denied the defendant’s motion to allow the defense to…”
Gifford v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 631 A.2d 252 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 4× “dditional police investigations if requested by the state’s attorney’s office; (4) to minimize unfavorable pretrial publicity that would necessitate a change of venue; (5) to preclude any prejudice caused by publication of a defendant’s confession or admission; (6) to avoid…”
State v. Sinclair, 569 A.2d 551 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990). · cites it 9× “Approximately one week before the trial began, the state informed the defendant that it could not locate the cassette tape containing Ducker’s statement, although it was able to provide a transcript of the recording signed by Ducker.”
State v. Daugaard, 647 A.2d 342 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 4× “Upon completion of her direct testimony, the state provided the defendant with a copy of the victim’s formal statement pursuant to General Statutes § 54-86b 7 and Practice Book § 752.”
Kelly v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 603 A.2d 1131 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 4× “…FOIC voted to reconvene the hearing and granted the plaintiff intervenor status, but not party status. At the reconvened hearing held on July 30,1990, the plaintiff claimed that the arrest report was protected from unconditional disclosure pursuant to the statutes and rules…”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86b(a) — 1 case
State v. Douglas, 522 A.2d 302 (Conn. App. Ct. 1987).
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.