OFFICIAL 2000 - Connecticut

OFFICIAL

2000

CONNECTICUT

CODE OF EVIDENCE

(2018 Edition)

? Copyrighted by the Secretary of the State of the State of Connecticut

OFFICIAL

2000

CONNECTICUT

CODE OF EVIDENCE

(2018 Edition)

Published by

The Commission on Official Legal Publications

? Copyrighted by the Secretary of the State of the State of Connecticut

? 2018 by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut

? Copyrighted by the Secretary of the State of the State of Connecticut

Foreword

The Connecticut Code of Evidence was adopted by the judges of the Superior Court on

June 28, 1999, to be effective January 1, 2000. The adoption of the Code signified the

culmination of work that had been in progress since 1993 when Supreme Court Justice David

M. Borden was asked to chair a committee of the Connecticut Law Revision Commission

charged with drafting a proposed code of evidence for Connecticut. The members of this

drafting committee included: Professor Colin C. Tait of the University of Connecticut School

of Law; Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz; Appellate Court Judge Paul M. Foti; Superior

Court Judges Julia L. Aurigemma, Samuel Freed and Joseph Q. Koletsky; Attorneys Robert

B. Adelman, Jeffrey Apuzzo, Joseph G. Bruckmann, William Dow III, David Elliot, Susann E.

Gill, Donald R. Holtman, Houston Putnam Lowry, Jane S. Scholl, and Eric W. Wiechmann;

Law Revision Commission members Jon P. FitzGerald, Representative Arthur J. O¡¯Neill,

Superior Court Judge Elliot N. Solomon, and Senator Thomas F. Upson; and Law Revision

Commission Senior Attorney Jo A. Roberts and Staff Attorney Eric M. Levine.

The drafting committee completed its work in September, 1997. After receiving public

comment, the drafting committee submitted its work product to the full Law Revision Commission, which voted to adopt the proposed code and commentary in December, 1997. Thereafter,

the proposed code and commentary were submitted to the Judiciary Committee of the General

Assembly for consideration during the 1998 legislative session. Before commencement of

the session, however, certain members of the General Assembly had suggested that, for

various reasons, a code of evidence should be adopted, if at all, by the judges of the Superior

Court pursuant to their rule-making authority rather than by legislation. Thus, the Judiciary

Committee urged then Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert J. Callahan to have the judges

of the Superior Court consider adopting the proposed code as rules of court.

In response, Chief Justice Callahan appointed a committee to consider and review the

proposed code and its commentary for adoption by the judges of the Superior Court. This

committee was chaired by Justice Katz and included Appellate Court Judge Barry R. Schaller,

Superior Court Judges Aurigemma, Thomas A. Bishop, Thomas J. Corradino, Freed, John

F. Kavanewsky, Jr., Koletsky, and William B. Rush, Professor Tait, and Attorneys Roberts

and Levine. This committee reviewed the proposed code and commentary from June, 1998,

until September, 1998, made changes to various parts thereof and then submitted its final work

product to the Rules Committee for approval. The Rules Committee unanimously approved

the proposed code and commentary. Thereafter, the proposed code and commentary were

subject to a public hearing in June, 1999, and finally were adopted by the judges on June

28, 1999.

An oversight committee was created by the judges of the Superior Court when they adopted

the Code, for the purpose of monitoring the development of the Code and making recommendations for future revision and clarification. The membership of the committee included: Justice

Katz (chair), Superior Court Judges Bishop, Corradino, Beverly J. Hodgson, Kavanewsky,

Koletsky, and Michael R. Sheldon, Attorneys Adelman, Bruckmann, Gill, Jack G. Steigelfest,

Wiechmann, and Levine (liaison, Office of the Reporter of Judicial Decisions), and Professor

Tait. The oversight committee convened in October, 1999, and recommended minor changes

to the Code and commentary based primarily on recent developments in the law. Those

recommended changes were approved by the Rules Committee, then by the judges of the

Superior Court, and were reflected in periodic amendments to the Code and commentary.

iii

? Copyrighted by the Secretary of the State of the State of Connecticut

In 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn.

418, 953 A.2d 45 (2008), in which the court asserted its common-law supervisory authority

to fashion a rule of evidence contrary to an applicable provision of the Code. In DeJesus,

the court also clarified that the judges of the Superior Court, in their rule-making authority

over the Code, do not have the ability to enact rules contrary to Supreme Court precedent.

Following DeJesus, and Justice Katz¡¯ resignation from the oversight committee, Judge Bishop,

then of the Appellate Court, was appointed to chair the committee. Pursuant to the holding

of DeJesus, the committee recommended changes to Section 4-5, regarding the admission

of evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts. The committee also recommended an addition

to Section 8-10, regarding hearsay, to harmonize the Code with legislation enacted by the

General Assembly, permitting certain evidence from an alleged victim, twelve years or younger,

of sexual assault or other sexual misconduct. Both of these recommendations were approved

by the Rules Committee and the judges of the Superior Court and became part of the Code.

In 2014, pursuant to a proposal from the Judicial Branch, the General Assembly enacted

No. 14-120 of the 2014 Public Acts (P.A. 14-120), which authorized the Supreme Court to

adopt the Code. This legislation, codified at General Statutes ¡ì 51-14a, also provides that, if

the Supreme Court does, in fact, adopt the Code, the Chief Justice shall appoint a standing

advisory committee of judges and lawyers to study the field of evidence law and periodically

make recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding any proposed amendments. Additionally, the legislation includes a provision requiring the advisory committee to make periodic

reports on its activities to the Judiciary Committee. Finally, the legislation contains a provision

making it clear that, notwithstanding this evidence rule-making authority, the Supreme Court

retains its common-law authority over the law of evidence, and the General Assembly retains

its legislative authority, as well.

Following the passage of P.A. 14-120, the Supreme Court adopted the Code on June 18,

2014, and, shortly thereafter, the following judges and lawyers were appointed to its Code

of Evidence Oversight Committee: Judge Bishop, Chair; Appellate Court Judges Eliot D.

Prescott and Sheldon; Superior Court Judges Thomas D. Colin, Steven D. Ecker, Barbara

B. Jongbloed, and Angela C. Robinson; and Attorneys Adelman, Leonard C. Boyle, Brian S.

Carlow, John R. Gulash, Kimberly P. Massicotte, Steigelfest, Lawrence J. Tytla, and Wiechmann. Additionally, Professor Julia Simon-Kerr agreed to serve as academic advisor to the

committee in place of Professor Tait, who had retired, Attorney Levine served as liaison to

the Office of the Reporter of Judicial Decisions, and Attorney Lori Petruzzelli of the Legal

Services Division of the Judicial Branch was appointed to serve as counsel to the committee.

During the fall and winter of 2014¨C2015, the committee studied whether to recommend

amendments to the Code and its commentary regarding computer related evidence. Following

the committee¡¯s recommendations to the Supreme Court and a period for public comment,

the Supreme Court adopted the committee¡¯s recommendations on May 20, 2015. As an

ongoing function, the committee continues to study the Code and the field of evidence to

determine whether to make recommendations to the Supreme Court for any changes or

additions to the Code.

Hon. Chase T. Rogers

Chief Justice, Supreme Court

December 14, 2017

iv

? Copyrighted by the Secretary of the State of the State of Connecticut

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download