Man Appeals Assault Conviction on Basis of 'Impossible' DNA Evidence

For a free consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

In the case of State v. Fred, a man appealed his conviction of three counts of assault in the first degree and one count of criminal violation of a protective order.

The accused had assaulted the three victims with a knife and was subsequently arrested. The state forensics laboratory performed DNA testing on portions of bloodstains on the defendant's clothing, a swab from blood on his hand, and DNA samples from the defendant and the three victims. The testing revealed DNA from one of the victims, P, on the defendant's clothing and on the blood on his hand, but did not detect DNA from another victim, G. After a jury trial, the man was convicted and he appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court. On appeal, the man claimed that the trial court had abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial as to the assault conviction pertaining to G because the jury's verdict was premised on physically impossible factual conclusions. Specifically, he claimed the absence of G's DNA on his body and clothing rendered his assault of her physically impossible. The accused also claimed that, by issuing a strongly worded perjury admonition to P during a suppression hearing, the trial court had violated his constitutional rights because it had intimidated P into altering her trial testimony in favor of the state.

The Connecticut Court of Appeals determined that the initial denial of the accused's motion for a new trial was not an abuse of discretion because there was a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that supported the jury's finding of guilt. Contrary to the accused's claim that if he had stabbed the three victims DNA from all three of them would have been found on him, the state's expert offered two reasonable explanations for the absence of G's DNA in the samples, and, therefore, the argument did not support a claim that the verdict was based on physical impossibility. Furthermore, the jury could have reasonably inferred from the explanations of the state's expert that the other evidence presented at trial, including two eyewitnesses to the assaults, provided a sufficient basis for the conviction of the accused even in the absence of DNA evidence from all three victims.

Maya Murphy P.C. has the resources and expertise to offer you the best possible representation throughout the criminal process. If you are facing criminal charges or wish to appeal your case, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. atJMaya@Mayalaw.com.

For continuous access to the legal world, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn. We offer the latest updates on caselaw and legal news. In addition, informational videos are available for your convenience on our YouTube channel. 

Source- State v. Fred C., 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 321 (Conn. App. Ct. Aug. 1, 2016)