¶1concurring. I concur in the majority’s opinion, but I am perplexed at its reluctance to apply the standard regarding the deposing of a potentially unavailable witness in a criminal case. For the sake of providing guidance to our trial courts, I believe it is important to apply that standard to the facts before us today. In this case, I would conclude that it was “more likely than not that [Frances Carrasquillo would] be unavailable at the time of trial.” Accordingly, the trial court improperly denied the defendant’s motion to depose Carrasquillo. I also conclude, however, that that denial was harmless error for the reasons set forth in the majority opinion.
237 Conn. 58
State v. Zaporta
Decided May 21, 1996
Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1996-05-21
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1996-05-21
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2019
12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →