Conn. R. Evid. 1-2
Conn. Code. Evid. 1-2
COMMENTARY
(a) Purposes of the Code.
Subsection (a) provides a general statement of the purposes of the Code. Case-by-case adjudication is integral to the growth and development of evidentiary law and, thus, future definition of the Code will be effected primarily through interpretation of the Code and through judicial rule making.
One of the goals of drafting the Code was to place common-law rules of evidence and certain identified statutory rules of evidence into a readily accessible body of rules to which the legal profession conveniently may refer. The Code sometimes states common-law evidentiary principles in language different from that of the cases from which these principles were derived. Because the Code was intended to maintain the status quo, i.e., preserve the common-law rules of evidence as they existed prior to adoption of the Code, its adoption is not intended to modify any prior common-law interpretation of those rules. Nor is the Code intended to change the common-law interpretation of certain incorporated statutory rules of evidence as it existed prior to the Code's adoption.
In some instances, the Code embraces rules or principles for which no Connecticut case law presently exists, or for which the case law is indeterminate. In such instances, these rules or principles were formulated with due consideration of the recognized practice in Connecticut courts and the policies underlying existing common law, statutes and the Practice Book.
Although the Code follows the general format and sometimes the language of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Code does not adopt the Federal Rules of Evidence or cases interpreting those rules. Cf. State v. Vilalastra, 207 Conn. 35, 39-40, 540 A.2d 42 (1988) (Federal Rules of Evidence influential in shaping Connecticut evidentiary rules, but not binding).
Unlike the Federal Rules of Evidence, which govern both the admissibility of evidence at trial and issues concerning the court's role in administering and controlling the trial process, the Code was developed with the intention that it would address issues concerning the admissibility of evidence and competency of witnesses, leaving trial management issues to common law, the Practice Book and the discretion of the court.
(b) Saving clause.
Subsection (b) addresses the situation in which courts are faced with evidentiary issues not expressly covered by the Code. Although the Code will address most evidentiary matters, it cannot possibly address every evidentiary issue that might arise during trial. Subsection (b) sets forth the standard by which courts are to be guided in such instances.
Precisely because it cannot address every evidentiary issue, the Code is not intended to be the exclusive set of rules governing the admissibility of evidence. Thus, subsection (b) makes clear that a court is not precluded from recognizing other evidentiary rules not inconsistent with the Code's provisions.
(c) Writing.
The rules and principles in the Code are intended to govern evidence in any form or medium, including without limitation, written and printed material, photographs, video and sound recordings, and electronically stored information. As a result of advances in technology, the widespread availability and use of electronic devices for storage and communication, and the proliferation of social media, courts are frequently called upon to rule on the admissibility of electronically stored information. That term, as used in the Code, refers to information that is stored in an electronic medium and is retrievable in perceivable form. See Practice Book § 13-1(a) (5).