Conn. Code Evid. § 8-2

History

(Amended Dec. 14, 2017, to take effect Feb. 1, 2018.) COMMENTARY (a) General rule. Section 8-2 is consistent with common law. See, e.g., State v. Oquendo, 223 Conn. 635, 664, 613 A.2d 1300 (1992); State v. Acquin, 187 Conn. 647, 680, 448 A.2d 163 (1982) (overruled in part on other grounds by Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 114 S. Ct. 2350, 129 L. Ed. 2d 362 (1994)), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1229, 103 S. Ct. 3570, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1411 (1983); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Capitol Garage, Inc., 154 Conn. 593, 597, 227 A.2d 548 (1967). In a few instances, the Practice Book contains rules of evi- dence that may ostensibly conflict with Code provisions. The Supreme Court has resolved any such conflict either through decisional law or by formally adopting certain hearsay excep- tions embodied in the rules of practice, adopted before June 18, 2014, the date on which the court adopted the Code. See, e.g., Practice Book § 13-31 (a) (2) (deposition of certain health- care providers is admissible, regardless of witness’ availabil- ity); Practice Book § 13-31 (a) (3) (deposition of party or officer, director, managing agent or employee testifying on behalf of corporation, partnership or government agency is admissible when used by adverse party for any purpose); Practice Book § 13-31 (a) (4) (deposition is admissible if, inter alia, witness is more than thirty miles from place of trial); Practice Book § 25-60 (c) (report of evaluation or study in family matters prepared pursuant to Practice Book § 25-60A or § 25-61 is admissible if author is available for cross-examination); Prac- tice Book § 35a-9 (social study in dispositional phase of child neglect and termination of parental rights proceedings is admissible, if author, if available, appears for cross-examina- tion); see also Hibbard v. Hibbard, 139 Conn. App. 10, 15–16, 55 A.3d 301 (2012) (report and hearsay statements contained therein are admissible under Practice Book § 25-60). (b) Testimonial statements and constitutional right of confrontation. This subsection reflects the federal constitutional principle announced in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68–69, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), which holds that testimonial hearsay is admissible against a criminal defendant at trial only if the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross- examine the declarant who is otherwise unavailable to testify at trial. See U.S. Const., amends. VI and XIV; Conn. Const., art. I, § 8.