State v. Smith

── State v. Smith ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: May 05, 2026 Author: Moll Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of 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 Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the 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 an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  State v. Smith STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. BARRY J. SMITH (AC 47278) Moll, Westbrook and Eveleigh, Js. Syllabus The defendant, who previously had been convicted, after a jury trial, of murder and felony murder, appealed from the trial court’s judgment deny- ing his postconviction petition, pursuant to statute (§ 54-102kk (b)), seeking DNA testing of fingernail scrapings that had been collected from the victim’s body during the investigation of the murder. The defendant claimed that the court improperly failed to conclude that exculpatory results of that DNA testing would have created a reasonable probability that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted had it been available at his criminal trial. Held: The defendant failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that DNA testing of the fingernail scrapings would have resulted in a reasonable prob- ability that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted, as the absence of his DNA or the presence of a third party’s DNA would not necessarily mean that the defendant was not present at the murder scene or did not participate in the commission of the crime, and it would not necessarily discredit the testimony of a witness who saw him participate in the com- mission of the murder. Argued October 8, 2025—officially released May 5, 2026 Procedural History Petition for postconviction DNA testing of certain biological evidence collected in connection with the defen- dant’s previous criminal trial, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury, where the court, Klatt, J., denied the petition, and the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed. Jennifer B. Smith, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Nicholas L. Scarlett, deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Maureen Platt, state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion WESTBROOK, J. The defendant, Barry J. Smith (peti- tioner), appeals from the denial of his postconviction peti- tion for DNA testing of biological evidence under General  State v. Smith Statutes § 54-102kk.1 The petitioner claims that the trial court improperly concluded that a reasonable probability did not exist that materially exculpatory evidence would have resulted in the petitioner not being prosecuted or convicted.2 We reject the petitioner’s claims and affirm the judgment of the court. 1 General Sta