Legal Opinion
State v. Solman
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decided October 25, 2011No. AC 32617PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
LAVINE, J.
In this case, we are called on to decide whether the petitioner, Vance Solman, has satisfied the threshold requirement of the postconviction DNA testing statute, General Statutes § 54-102kk (a), that “[t]he petitioner shall state under penalties of perjury that . . . the evidence sought to be tested contains biological evidence” in order to obtain DNA testing of evidence in the state’s possession. We agree with the trial court that the petitioner has not satisfied this requirement because he failed to provide sufficient factual support for the contention that the evidence…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Swearingen v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2010
- Bennett v. New Milford Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- Vollemans v. Town of WallingfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2007
- Vollemans v. Town of WallingfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2008
- Daigle v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Joshua McGiboney v. StateIdaho Court of Appeals · 2016
- State v. SolmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- State v. SolmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011