State v. Asherman, 478 A.2d 227, 193 Conn. 695 (Conn. 1984)

• Related Articles

• State v. Asherman, 478 A.2d 227, 193 Conn. 695 (Conn. 1984)

  Odontologist used life-sized enlargements and creation of "mirror image" photograph of defendant's teeth by photographing defendant's teeth and taking special scan photographs inside defendant's mouth.

• State v. Ervin, 936 A.2d 290, 105 Conn.App. 34 (Conn.App. 2007)

  The state properly admitted into evidence a videotaped demonstration of a chokehold, viewed by the medical examiner, to demonstrate that the defendant had the knowledge and capacity to perform this on his victim.

• State v. Deleon, 645 A.2d 518, 230 Conn. 351 (Conn. 1994)

  The state admitted into evidence a videotape of the crime scene, even though the videographer used the zoom lens and stepped over the victims body to show the jury what the defendant would have had to do to get to the safe. “This court has ...

• Annecharico v. Patterson, 688 A.2d 1341, 44 Conn.App. 271 (Conn.App. 1997)

  “Because the witness was qualified to render an opinion on the point of impact and the opinion was based on his own observations of the accident scene, it was proper for the trial court to admit Mantho's testimony and the diagram [of the accident ...

• State v. Hardy, 489 A.2d 508 (Me. 1985)

  The results of experiments are admissible if they are conducted under circumstances which bear a "substantial similarity" to those surrounding the event placed in issue at trial. See Sucrest Corporation v. M/V Jennifer, 455 F.Supp. 371, 385 n. 22 ...