State v. Dixon (Concurrence)

Summary

Justice Dannehy, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Alexander, concurs in part and in the judgment. The concurrence would find that portions of the expert testimony concerning Stamford neighborhoods and neighborhood disputes were properly admitted to explain motive, while testimony about narcotics and large-scale drug and firearms trafficking should have been excluded as unduly prejudicial. It agrees that the evidentiary error was harmless because the improper testimony was brief, limited in use, not emphasized in summation, and the state's case was strong.