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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86c (2025)

Disclosure of exculpatory information or material

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Not later than thirty days after any defendant enters a plea of not guilty in a criminal case, the state's attorney, assistant state's attorney or deputy assistant state's attorney in charge of the case shall disclose any exculpatory information or material which he may have with respect to the defendant whether or not a request has been made therefor. If prior to or during the trial of the case, the prosecutorial official discovers additional information or material which is exculpatory, he shall promptly disclose the information or material to the defendant.

(b) Any state's attorney, assistant state's attorney or deputy assistant state's attorney may request an ex parte in camera hearing before a judge, who shall not be the same judge who presides at the hearing of the criminal case if the case is tried to the court, to determine whether any material or information is exculpatory.

(c) Each peace officer, as defined in subdivision (9) of section 53a-3, shall disclose in writing any exculpatory information or material which he may have with respect to any criminal investigation to the prosecutorial official in charge of such case.

(P.A. 78-290, S. 1; P.A. 80-313, S. 33.)

History: P.A. 80-313 replaced “such” with “the” where appearing.

Cited. 184 C. 258; 189 C. 183; 191 C. 12; 194 C. 258; 197 C. 17; Id., 298; 198 C. 285; 199 C. 207; Id., 399; 201 C. 517; 206 C. 512; 209 C. 143; 212 C. 387; 221 C. 264; 229 C. 716.

Cited. 14 CA 586; 17 CA 525; 22 CA 329; 24 CA 57; Id., 195; 34 CA 58; judgment reversed, see 232 C. 537; 36 CA 417; 38 CA 777.

Cited. 36 CS 89; 42 CS 291. Police officer lied in investigation of incident and therefore violated public policy; arbitration panel, in reinstating the police officer, violated this public policy. 50 CS 180.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State v. Peeler, 857 A.2d 808 (Conn. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Peeler, 857 A.2d 808 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 10× “, for an in camera review pursuant to General Statutes § 54-86c (b). 48 After reviewing the letter, Judge Thim concluded that it contained exculpatory information that should be disclosed to the defendant, but suggested that if Benedict disagreed, he should present the issue to…”
State v. Packard, 439 A.2d 983 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 12× “After the court ruled that the state had no duty to disclose this information and denied the defendant's motion, he moved for a continuance or additional time in which to investigate.”
State v. Milner, 539 A.2d 80 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 6× “By agreement this material was placed in an envelope and presented to the court for an in camera hearing and judicial determination as to whether it was disclosable as exculpatory material, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-86c (b). 12 Prior to trial, the court held a hearing at…”
State v. Wilcox, 758 A.2d 824 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 6× “On appeal, the defendant renews his claim that the state suppressed evidence in violation of Brady , 16 Specifically, the defendant claims that the state’s failure to produce the notes violated his right to the disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment evidence pursuant to…”
State v. Shannon, 563 A.2d 646 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 6× “Maryland, supra, and in violation of General Statutes § 54-86c. 6 In par *396 ticular, the defendant asserts that the state withheld: (1) a statement made by John Hightower, a potential witness; (2) the dispatch records of the Yellow Cab Company from the night of Leon Walker’s…”
State v. Rogers, 664 A.2d 291 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 7× “On September 17, 1992, the defendant informed the trial court that the state had obtained the transcript of the criminal trial against W and argued that the state’s possession of that transcript deprived him of a fair trial.”
State v. Falcone, 463 A.2d 558 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 4× “3 The prosecution responded to the motion, declaring that the only exculpatory material known to the prosecution was Gaetano’s oral retraction of a statement given to the New Haven police department that was already known to defense counsel.”
State v. Green, 480 A.2d 526 (Conn. 1984). · cites it 4× “” Because there is not any evidence that shows when the state’s attorney *265 first became aware of the photo, and no evidence that he ever in fact had it, we perceive no per se violation of this statute under the circumstances of this case.”
State v. Burak, 518 A.2d 639 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 54-86c 3 requires the state to reveal any information favorable to the defendant, which would include any understanding or agreements between any state’s witness and the state. See State v. Rucker, supra, 373-74 .”
Stevenson v. Comm'r of Corr., 139 A.3d 718 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 54-86c (a). 2 It is irrelevant whether the [s]tate [i.”
State v. Andres C., 315 A.3d 1014 (Conn. 2024). · cites it 5× “‘‘Later that day, the [trial] court indicated that it had reviewed the four pages from the journals submitted by the prosecution and determined that one page should be disclosed to the defense. Specifically, the court stated: ‘One of the material issues in this case is .”
State v. Crumble, 585 A.2d 1245 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 5× “2d 558 (1983); see also General Statutes § 54-86c.” State v. Bettini, 11 Conn.”
Show all 42 citing cases →
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86c(c): 5 cases
Murvin v. Jennings, 259 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D. Conn. 2003).
Carmon v. City of New Haven, No. 3:23-cv-00944 (D. Conn. Sept. 18, 2025).
Birch v. New Milford, No. 3:20-cv-01790 (D. Conn. Jan. 24, 2025).
Jackson v. New Haven, No. 3:19-cv-00388 (D. Conn. Mar. 29, 2024).
Horn v. New Haven, No. 3:18-cv-01502 (D. Conn. Mar. 29, 2024).
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.