Judicial District of New Britain


†††† †Criminal; Whether Appellate Court Properly Declined to Review Claim Concerning Suppression of DNA Evidence.† The defendant was convicted of murder in connection with the 2010 shooting and killing of a drug dealer.† He appealed, claiming, among other things, that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress with respect to DNA evidence obtained from a buccal swab because the swab was taken after the defendant had invoked his right to counsel.† The state argued that the defendant abandoned that claim at the suppression hearing and that is should not be reviewed on appeal.† The Appellate Court (159 Conn. App. 376) affirmed the defendantís conviction, finding that the claim concerning the DNA evidence was not preserved at trial and that the defendant could not prevail under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989), because the unpreserved claim was not of constitutional magnitude.† The Appellate Court noted that the buccal swab was not testimonial evidence, and that constitutional protection applies only to testimonial evidence.† The defendant appeals, and the Supreme Court will decide whether the Appellate Court properly affirmed the judgment of conviction after refusing to review the defendant's claim concerning suppression of the DNA evidence.