State v. White

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE v. WHITE—CONCURRENCE D’AURIA, J., with whom PALMER, McDONALD and ECKER, Js., join, concurring. I agree fully with part II of the majority opinion. I also agree with the majority’s conclusion in part I of its opinion that there is an insuffi- cient record in the present case to afford the defendant, John White, review of his constitutional claim, let alone the new trial he requests on this direct appeal. Although I join the majority’s opinion, I write separately because over the course of a quarter of a century as a civil servant, I have developed what I humbly believe to be a finely tuned ear to governmental refrains of ‘‘not my job’’ and ‘‘we don’t have a budget for that.’’ Thus, I feel compelled to comment on how often this bureaucratic jockeying can strike a discordant note that does not focus appropriately on the rights of the accused. The defendant denies it was he who, in 2009, stabbed the victim with a box cutter and caused her serious injuries while she walked back to a friend’s home from the store she had gone to for something to drink. The defendant went to trial without the assistance of a DNA expert to counter the state’s expert, or at least to con- sult for purposes of cross-examination. This was per- haps not advisable. See P. Giannelli, ‘‘Ake v. Oklahoma: The Right to Expert Assistance in A Post-Daubert, Post-DNA World,’’ 89 Cornell L. Rev. 1305, 1315 (2004) (‘‘[f]ew defense attorneys can deal with this type of sophisticated evidence—which raises issues ‘at the cut- ting edge of modern law and science’—without expert assistance’’ (footnote omitted)). The defendant claims this was not his preference but that, instead, the actions and inactions of several state agencies combined to place him in this predicament. In 2013, the Waterbury police obtained information about a potential DNA match on a red …Original document