State v. Bruny

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for murder and criminal possession of a pistol or revolver. It held that lay identification testimony and forensic video-analysis testimony were admissible, that any error concerning redirect testimony and the eyewitness identifications was harmless, that no special jailhouse-informant instruction was required for testimony about an observed event, and that the evidence sufficiently established the firearm’s barrel length. The court also announced that expert testimony concerning identification-related analysis of surveillance footage is admissible when it satisfies the expert-testimony requirements of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.