Opinion
No. CR02-0117846S
December 4, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR ORDER FOR DNA TESTING OF BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
The defendant, Roger P. Cote, moves the Court for DNA testing of biological evidence pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 54-102kk. Specifically, the defendant moves that the Court order DNA testing of a knife which had been previously marked as an exhibit during the trial of this matter, which took place in September of 2004.
The provisions of § 54-102kk allow that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law governing post-conviction relief, any person who was convicted of a crime and sentenced to incarceration may, at any time during the term of such incarceration, file a petition with the sentencing court requesting the DNA testing of any evidence that is in the possession or control of the Division of Criminal Justice, any law enforcement agency, any laboratory or the Superior Court . . ." Per the statute, the defendant in this case claims that "A reasonable probability exists that the requested testing will produce DNA results which would have altered the verdict or reduced the petitioner's sentence if the results had been available at the prior proceedings leading to the judgment of conviction." See 54-102kk(b)(1).
For the purposes of this motion, the Court will assume that the petitioner has satisfied §§ 2, 3 and 4 of subsection (b) of the statute in that the evidence still in existence and is capable of being subjected to DNA testing, the evidence has never been previously subjected to DNA testing, and that the petition is made in order to demonstrate the petitioner's innocence, and not to delay the administration of justice.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
In ruling on a motion which challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction, the Court is obligated to weigh the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict of guilty. State v. Jacobowitz, 194 Conn. 408, 415, 480 A.2d 557 (1984). While the instant motion does not directly challenge the sufficiency of evidence previously submitted, the claim is that the petitioner would not have been convicted if exculpatory evidence had been developed though DNA testing as requested. As such, it has been determined that the standard of proof applied to petitions made under § 54-102kk of the Statutes should employ the "reasonable probability" standard. State v. Martinez, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, CR94 230560 (October 3, 2007, Levin, J.). See also Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, (1963); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 105 S.Ct. 3375 (1985).
FACTS
Pursuant to the legal principles controlling this case, the Court is obligated to undertake a review of the entire evidentiary record. In order to do so, the Court has examined the entire transcript of the trial which can be summarized as follows:
The complaining witness, Amy Deane, was called by the State. She was involved in a relationship with the defendant at the time of the alleged offense which was December 23, 2002. Ms. Deane testified that during the early morning hours of that day, "the defendant was acting irrationally." He entered into her room, and kept her from getting up and out of bed. In the course of an argument, he accused her of infidelity and asked her to have sex with him. She testified that he pulled a knife "out of nowhere," and held the knife to her throat. She felt it touch her neck, and she felt the defendant move the knife up and down on her neck. At one point, she testified that he held the knife to her chest and again pressed it against her throat. She testified that she could feel the point of the knife, and felt a scraping sensation from the knife. Ms. Deane testified that she had marks on her neck that were made from the knife on the day in question. She identified several photographs taken by the state police of her neck and also testified as to a cut on her finger that she received at one point during the incident when she tried to push the knife away from her neck. The photographs were introduced into evidence.
Ms. Deane's son, Robert St. Jean, also testified. He testified that he had seen the marks on her neck and that they looked like "scratches or slices." He further testified as to his seeing the cut on her finger and identified the injuries from the photos that were admitted as exhibits.
Ms. Deane's father, Edward Deane, testified as well. He testified that she had "lacerations" on her neck. He also identified the photos showing the injuries and testified that they showed the injuries that he himself had observed.
Leonard Blanchette, a trooper with the Connecticut State Police testified for the State as well. He interviewed and took a report from the complainant on the day of the incident. He witnessed superficial lacerations made by a sharp object which were not very deep. He testified that he could see a little blood line as one made by a knife or a paper cut on Ms. Deane's neck. Trooper Blanchette took the photos that had been identified by the other witnesses, saw the cut on the victim's finger, and took possession of the knife given to him by Ms. Amy Deane.
All of the witnesses who testified for the State were cross-examined. They were cross-examined with particular emphasis on the injury and the statement given by Ms. Deane. The cross examination brought out what appeared to have been inconsistencies with respect to a report of an attempted sexual assault, which were counts upon which the defendant, Roger Cote, was acquitted by the jury.
The defendant, Roger Cote, testified on his own behalf. He identified the knife in question and said that it was "razorblade sharp." However, he denied putting the knife to Ms. Deane's throat or to her neck, claimed that he had never touched her, threatened her or harmed her in the course of that incident.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Having examined the record, the Court must determine whether the defendant is entitled to the relief which he seeks under this statute. In doing so, the Court must find that the requested testing would produce DNA results which would have led to the petitioner's not being prosecuted or convicted upon an exculpatory result. § 54-102kk(b)(1).
The issue as to whether the testing of the knife would have altered the decision to prosecute, or the conviction, if it had been tested has to be taken in the context of all of the evidence and the entire record.
In the examination of the record, every witness (except the defendant) testified as to the fact that Ms. Deane did suffer an injury to her throat area. The injury was observed directly by Ms. Deane, her son, her father, and a member of the Connecticut State Police. In addition, the injury was photographed by the state trooper and said photographs were admitted into evidence. The trooper testified that the cuts were superficial in nature, and they appeared to have been made by a sharp object. He further testified that a blood line was visible, such as may have been made by a knife or a paper cut. Mr. Cote himself testified that the knife was "razorblade sharp," though he denied putting the knife to Ms. Deane's throat.
The Court concludes that there is no evidence upon which it can find that the testing of the knife for DNA evidence would have altered the verdict or the state's decision to prosecute the defendant in any way had they been available at the prior proceedings. There is no reasonable probability that the petitioner would not have been prosecuted or convicted had results of the DNA testing been somehow "exculpatory."
The relief sought in the instant petition is hereby denied.