State v. Alexis, 194 Conn.App. 162

On May 21, 2015, Garyl Alexis went to Jorge Perez and Paige Whitley’s apartment, displayed a black semiautomatic pistol, grabbed a bag of marijuana and fled, accidentally leaving his wallet behind.
Perez texted Alexis; Alexis replied threateningly: “I WANT MY WALLET BACK OR IMMA SEE U cuz” and referenced “shells,” which victims interpreted as a shooting threat.
Police located and detained Alexis minutes later a few blocks away; they seized his wallet and cell phone but did not recover the gun or marijuana.
Forensic extraction of Alexis’s phone later recovered a deleted photograph (dated five days earlier) showing five firearms; Perez and Whitley each identified one pictured gun as similar to the weapon used in the robbery.
At trial the court admitted three iterations of that photograph (state exhibits 3, 4, 7) and denied a request to exclude it as unduly prejudicial; Alexis was convicted of first‑degree robbery and second‑degree threatening.
On appeal Alexis challenged (1) admission of the phone photograph (and absence of a limiting instruction) and (2) alleged Doyle v. Ohio error based on testimony and a prosecutor remark referencing his postarrest/post‑Miranda silence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of deleted phone photograph (and failure to give a limiting instruction)	Photo was highly probative because victims identified a pictured gun as similar and the image was on defendant’s phone.	Photo was unduly prejudicial, of questionable provenance/authentication, and required a limiting instruction.	Even if admission (and lack of limiting instruction) was error, it was harmless; the verdict was not substantially affected given strong independent evidence (identifications, inculpatory texts, wallet recovered).
Use of postarrest/post‑Miranda silence (Doyle claim) — testimony and closing remark	References were limited to police investigative efforts and location of the gun, not used to impeach; harmless in context.	Testimony that defendant would not answer and prosecutor statement that he “didn’t say anything” violated Doyle and deprived him of a fair trial.	Assuming a Doyle violation, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: references were isolated, prosecutor did not emphasize or repeatedly invoke silence, and other strong evidence proved guilt; defendant also failed to object at trial.

Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (postarrest/post‑Miranda silence generally inadmissible; use violates due process).
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings and protection for invocation of right to remain silent).
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (standards for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims).
State v. Montgomery, 254 Conn. 694 (2000) (Doyle errors subject to harmless‑error analysis; significance depends on how prosecutor used silence).
State v. Bouknight, 323 Conn. 620 (2016) (nonconstitutional evidentiary error harmless only if it did not substantially affect verdict).
State v. Cabral, 275 Conn. 514 (2005) (limited use of invocation of rights permissible to show investigative steps, not for impeachment).