Sec. 1-2. Purposes and Construction

(a) Purposes of the Code. The purposes of the

Code are to adopt Connecticut case law regarding

rules of evidence as rules of court and to promote

the growth and development of the law of evi­

dence through interpretation of the Code and

through judicial rule making to the end that the

truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly

determined.

(b) Saving clause. Where the Code does not

prescribe a rule governing the admissibility of evi­

dence, the court shall be governed by the princi-

ples of the common law as they may be

interpreted in the light of reason and experience,

except as otherwise required by the constitution

of the United States, the constitution of this state,

the General Statutes or the Practice Book. The

provisions of the Code shall not be construed as

precluding any court from recognizing other evi­

dentiary rules not inconsistent with such provisions.

(c) Writing. Any reference in the Code to a

writing or any other medium of evidence includes

electronically stored information.

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 inter­

pretation 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

er. 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 some­

times 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.

idence, 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

Sec. 1-1

Code. Although the Code will address most evidentiary mat­

ters, 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 infor­

mation. 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).