State v. Blake

4 Citing cases

  1. Blake v. Murphy

    CASE NO. 3:12CV1300(MPS) (D. Conn. Apr. 3, 2013)

    On June 17, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certification to appeal the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court. See State v. Blake, 287 Conn. 922, 951 A.2d 573 (2008). On March 16, 2009, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville challenging his 2005 convictions.

  2. Harris v. Comm'r of Corr.

    191 Conn. App. 238 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    As our Supreme Court observed in Esposito , the mere existence of a psychiatric disorder does not automatically impugn a witness' ability to testify truthfully or to relay events accurately, nor does it automatically subject that witness' psychiatric records to disclosure. See State v. Blake , 106 Conn. App. 345, 352, 942 A.2d 496 ("[t]he linchpin of the determination of the defendant's access to the records is whether they sufficiently disclose material especially probative of the [witness'] ability to comprehend, know and correctly relate the truth ... so as to justify breach of their confidentiality and disclosing them to the defendant in order to protect his right of confrontation" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 287 Conn. 922, 951 A.2d 573 (2008). To make a threshold showing that an in camera review is appropriate, the petitioner must show that the witness had a "substantially diminished" capacity to "observe, recollect and narrate" the event.

  3. State v. Rivera

    187 Conn. App. 813 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Blake , 106 Conn. App. 345, 355 n.7, 942 A.2d 496, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 922, 951 A.2d 573 (2008). III

  4. State v. Ranieri

    CR170288924T (Conn. Super. Ct. Sep. 4, 2019)

    The mere existence of a juvenile court referral, family with service needs petition, department of children and families referral, emotional behavior, respite care or use of medication does not automatically impugn a witness’ ability to testify truthfully or to relay events accurately, nor does it automatically subject that witness’ psychiatric records to disclosure. See State v. Blake, 106 Conn.App. 345, 352, 942 A.2d 496 ("[t]he linchpin of the determination of the defendant’s access to the records is whether they sufficiently disclose material especially probative of the [witness’] ability to comprehend, know and correctly relate the truth ... so as to justify breach of their confidentiality and disclosing them to the defendant in order to protect his right of confrontation" [internal quotation marks omitted] ), cert. denied, 287 Conn. 922, 951 A.2d 573 (2008). To make a threshold showing that an in camera review is appropriate, the petitioner must show that the witness had a "substantially diminished" capacity to "observe, recollect and narrate" the event.