State v. Day, 158 A.3d 323

Background

On Aug 22, 2012 a masked man entered Pereira’s Package Store, shot Frank Pereira, and fled; both Frank and Gisele Pereira observed the assailant and later described him as a dark-skinned Black male with a beard, sunglasses, and a hooded sweatshirt.
Police obtained a DOC photo of Robert Day (dated 2008), altered its background/color, and Detective Laferriere compiled two simultaneous eight-photo arrays that included Day’s modified DOC photo; both Pereiras separately selected that photo one week after the crime.
After the identifications, the prosecutor later met with both Pereiras together and showed them Day’s postarrest booking photo (labeled with name/date); police also disclosed to the Pereiras that they had both selected the same person.
Day was prosecuted for first‑degree assault of an elderly person, attempt to commit robbery, and criminal possession of a firearm; he was convicted after a bifurcated trial and sentenced to 30 years total.
Pretrial, Day moved to suppress out‑of‑court and in‑court identifications as the product of unnecessarily suggestive procedures; the trial court denied suppression. At trial the court permitted defense expert Dr. Steven Penrod to testify on many reliability factors but barred him from (1) opining about the specific arrays in this case and (2) comparing simultaneous vs. sequential presentation in general.
Day appealed, arguing suppression was required, that the court improperly limited expert testimony, that the court refused requested eyewitness‑identification jury instructions, and raising two other evidentiary claims (holster testimony; access to victim’s medical records).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pretrial photographic and postidentification procedures were so unnecessarily suggestive that identifications must be suppressed	State: procedures were proper; arrays were similar and witnesses were separately shown arrays with instructions; in‑court IDs are subject to cross‑examination	Day: arrays were composed to match Day’s altered DOC photo (not victims’ descriptions), shown simultaneously (promoting relative judgment), administered non‑blind, followed by confirmatory feedback and prosecutor’s one‑photo showup — all unnecessarily suggestive	Court: Procedures were unnecessarily suggestive in multiple respects, but under the totality of circumstances the resulting identifications were sufficiently reliable; suppression was denied
Whether the trial court erred in limiting expert testimony about (a) comparing simultaneous vs sequential procedures and (b) applying expertise to the specific arrays	Day: Penrod should be allowed to explain scientific evidence that sequential procedures reduce false IDs and to apply general research to the arrays here	State: expert may not opine on ultimate issue or specific witness credibility; testimony comparing sequential vs simultaneous was irrelevant because no sequential lineup was administered; experts shouldn’t comment on the particular arrays	Court: Guilbert prohibits experts from opining on credibility of specific IDs, so exclusion of expert commentary about the particular arrays was proper; exclusion of general sequential v. simultaneous comparison was at most error but harmless because Penrod otherwise explained simultaneous‑array risks and victims testified they used process of elimination
Whether the court erred by refusing defendant’s requested specific jury instructions on Guilbert reliability factors (weapon focus, stress, postevent info, cross‑race, sequential procedure, time elapsed)	Day: requested particularized Guilbert‑style instructions were required to inform the jury of scientific findings undermining eyewitness reliability	State: general identification instructions suffice and expert testimony was admissible to educate the jury	Court: Guilbert permits particularized instructions but they are discretionary; here the trial court’s general ID instruction plus extensive Penrod testimony adequately informed the jury; no reversible instructional error
Evidentiary rulings: (1) admission of detective’s testimony that a seized holster was stretched consistent with a revolver; (2) denial of access to victim’s medical records	State: testimony about the holster was relevant circumstantial corroboration; medical records irrelevant to perception/memory	Day: holster testimony was speculative and needed expert foundation; medical records could show treatment affecting perception/recollection	Court: (1) admission proper — jury decides weight; (2) in‑camera review showed records were irrelevant, denial proper

Key Cases Cited

Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (establishes reliability factors for admissibility of suggestive identifications)
State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (2012) (expert testimony on general eyewitness‑identification reliability admissible; experts may not opine on credibility of specific ID)
State v. Marquez, 291 Conn. 122 (2009) (framework for analyzing suggestiveness of photographic arrays)
State v. Ledbetter, 275 Conn. 534 (2005) (simultaneous arrays foster relative judgment; instructions required if witness not warned perpetrator may be absent)
State v. Revels, 313 Conn. 762 (2014) (entire identification procedure must be examined in context; components not considered piecemeal)
State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410 (2016) (outlines two‑prong due process test for suggestiveness and reliability)
State v. Findlay, 198 Conn. 328 (1986) (single‑photo showups are ‘‘almost always’’ unnecessarily suggestive absent exigency)