## Facts

- Carla Terry went out in Hartford on January 12–13, 1991, and was later dropped near her home shortly after 2 a.m.
- Around 4:45 a.m., police found Terry dead in a snow bank near the University of Hartford; her clothing was partially displaced.
- The autopsy concluded Terry died from manual strangulation.
- Forensic examiners documented a patterned injury on Terry’s breast that the prosecution characterized as a human bite mark.
- The state offered bite-mark comparison evidence linking the injury to Alfred Swinton’s dentition.
- A state forensic analyst digitized original bite-mark photographs and used a software program to enhance contrast and apparent detail, producing computer-enhanced images and computer-generated comparison exhibits (including overlays).
- The analyst testified the enhancement adjusted contrast layers to make detail more visible, did not add or remove content from the originals, and was used in forensic work.
- The trial court admitted the original photos, the enhanced photos, and the derivative exhibits; the jury convicted Swinton of murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court improperly admitted computer-enhanced bite-mark photographs without an adequate foundation showing the enhancement process was reliable and produced a fair and accurate representation.
2. Whether the trial court improperly admitted computer-generated bite-mark comparison exhibits (including overlays) without adequate authentication and accuracy safeguards.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error through additional trial-management and constitutional rulings, including limits on appellate marking of materials, disclosure after in camera review, sequestration of victim-family witnesses, admission of jailhouse statements, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the computer-enhanced photographs because the state established authentication and an adequate explanation of the enhancement method, and the enhanced images were tied to admitted originals.
- The court held the computer-generated overlays and related exhibits were properly admitted as demonstrative aids grounded in admitted evidence and explained to the jury.
- The court rejected Swinton’s remaining claims, finding no prejudicial error in the challenged trial rulings or in the prosecutor’s argument.

## Legal Principles

- Photographs and similar demonstrative evidence are admissible when authenticated as a fair and accurate representation of what they purport to depict.
- Digitally enhanced images may be admitted under traditional authentication principles when the proponent shows the enhancement process is sufficiently reliable and does not distort the underlying content.
- A foundation for computer enhancement may include: (a) admission of the original images for comparison, (b) testimony describing the enhancement steps and their effect, and (c) evidence supporting the method’s reliability in the relevant field.
- Computer-generated overlays derived from admitted data may be admitted as demonstrative exhibits when their creation is explained and they assist the jury in evaluating expert testimony; their weight remains for the jury.
- Appellate reversal for evidentiary or trial-management decisions generally requires a showing of abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the use of computer-enhanced forensic photographs and computer-generated comparison exhibits, concluding that detailed foundational testimony and linkage to admitted originals supported authenticity and minimized distortion concerns, and that the remaining asserted errors did not warrant a new trial.


State v. Swinton, 268 Conn. 781, 847 A.2d 921 (Conn. 2004)