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

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86k (2026)

Admissibility of results of DNA analysis

✓ 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 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.

(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.

See Secs. 54-102g to 54-102l, inclusive, re DNA analysis procedures.

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.

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

Sec. 54-86l. Admissibility in criminal or juvenile proceeding of statement by child twelve years of age or younger at time of statement relating to sexual offense or offense involving physical abuse against the child. (a) Notwithstanding any other rule of evidence or provision of law, a statement by a child twelve years of age or younger at the time of the statement relating to a sexual offense committed against that child, or an offense involving physical abuse committed against that child by the child's parent or guardian or any other person exercising comparable authority over the child at the time of the offense, shall be admissible in a criminal or juvenile proceeding if: (1) The court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, if any, that the circumstances of the statement, including its timing and content, provide particularized guarantees of its trustworthiness, (2) the statement was not made in preparation for a legal proceeding, (3) the proponent of the statement makes known to the adverse party an intention to offer the statement and the particulars of the statement including the content of the statement, the approximate time, date and location of the statement, the person to whom the statement was made and the circumstances surrounding the statement that indicate its trustworthiness, at such time as to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, and (4) either (A) the child testifies and is subject to cross-examination at the proceeding, or (B) the child is unavailable as a witness and (i) there is independent nontestimonial corroborative evidence of the alleged act, and (ii) the statement was made prior to the defendant's arrest or institution of juvenile proceedings in connection with the act described in the statement.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to (1) prevent the admission of any statement under another hearsay exception, (2) allow broader definitions in other hearsay exceptions for statements made by children twelve years of age or younger at the time of the statement concerning any alleged act described in subsection (a) of this section than is done for other declarants, or (3) allow the admission pursuant to the residual hearsay exception of a statement described in subsection (a) of this section.

(P.A. 07-143, S. 11; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 07-5, S. 42; P.A. 09-63, S. 1.)

History: P.A. 07-143 effective July 1, 2007; June Sp. Sess. P.A. 07-5 deleted provision in Subsec. (a) re admissibility in civil proceedings, effective October 6, 2007; P.A. 09-63 amended Subsec. (a) to substitute “child twelve years of age or younger at the time of the statement” for “child under thirteen years of age” and replace provision re persons having authority or apparent authority over the child with provision re parent, guardian or other person exercising authority over the child at time of offense, and amended Subsec. (b) to substitute “children twelve years of age or younger” for “children under thirteen years of age”.

See Sec. 54-86g re courtroom testimony of child abused or sexually assaulted.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1996–2020 · leading case: State v. Jackson, 40 A.3d 290 (Conn. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jackson, 40 A.3d 290 (Conn. 2012). · cites it 10× “The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction directly to this court [1] claiming that the trial court improperly: (1) denied his motion to suppress certain evidence seized by the police without a search warrant; (2) denied his motion to preclude certain evidence that…”
State v. Foreman, 954 A.2d 135 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 4× “2d 169 (1994), and General Statutes § 54-86k (a), 31 the trial court first noted that “DNA testing is now generally accepted in the scientific community.”
State v. Brown, 700 A.2d 1089 (Conn. 1997). · cites it 6× “Not only was the defendant deprived of his constitutional rights to a jury trial and to present a defense; see part II of this dissent; but he was also deprived of his statutory rights.”
Skakel v. Comm'r of Corr., 188 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2018). · cites it 2× “Although highly reliable modern forms of scientific identification such as DNA analysis; see General Statutes § 54-86k (a) ; were not yet available to law enforcement at the time of the victim's death in 1975, this court has frequently recognized that more traditional types of…”
State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746 (Tenn. 2000). “1999) ("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.”); Del.”
State v. Campanaro, 78 A.3d 267 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 6× “The court then issued its ruling, after noting that General Statutes § 54-86k (c) 4 provides that “the presumptive amount of time that a party needs to respond to a disclosure of a [DNA] report is twenty-one days.”
State v. Benjamin, 861 A.2d 524 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “but also from [D] and, again, I suggest to you that that was in order to try and malte sure that there was less chance that there would be anything caught up in clothes.”
Armstead v. State, 673 A.2d 221 (Md. 1996). “§§ 634.25-634.26 (West Supp. 1995)), North Dakota (N.”
State v. Arroyo, 931 A.2d 975 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 7× “Accordingly you may apply any DNA evidence that has been presented in this case, in your deliberations of the guilt or innocence of the [a]ccused, including whether the results of the DNA analysis tends to exculpate the accused.”
State v. Gray, 12 A.3d 1008 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 54-86k (a) provides, in relevant part, that “[i]n 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…”
State v. White (Conn. 2020). · cites it 3× “The following day, the state filed a notice of its intent to introduce DNA evidence pursuant to General Statutes § 54-86k, as well as a motion for nontestimonial evi- dence pursuant to Practice Book §§ 40-32 and 40-34 (6), requesting to sample the defendant’s DNA by buccal swab.”
State v. White, 334 Conn. 742 (Conn. 2020). · cites it 3× “The following day, the state filed a notice of its intent to introduce DNA evidence pursuant to General Statutes § 54-86k, as well as a motion for nontestimonial evi- dence pursuant to Practice Book §§ 40-32 and 40-34 (6), requesting to sample the defendant’s DNA by buccal swab.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86k(a) — 1 case
State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746 (Tenn. 2000). “1999) ("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.”); Del.”
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.