State v. Evans, 352 Conn. 794

Background

The defendant, Richard Evans, was convicted of murder and carrying a pistol without a permit after the shooting death of Reginald May in Bridgeport, Connecticut, in July 2017.
Key evidence included a lay witness (John May) identifying Evans in a photograph from surveillance footage shortly after the crime and cell site location information (CSLI) placing Evans’s phone near the crime scene and later near where the murder weapon was found.
Evans challenged the admissibility of May’s identification testimony, arguing a lack of sufficient familiarity, and sought suppression of the CSLI, arguing improper probable cause and overbreadth of the warrant.
The trial court admitted the identification testimony, finding May sufficiently familiar with Evans based on the circumstances of their encounter, and limited the scope of CSLI admissibility.
On appeal, Evans argued these decisions were erroneous and sought reversal of his conviction.

Issues

Issue	Evans's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of lay witness identification from photograph	May lacked sufficient familiarity with Evans for reliable identification; single encounter is insufficient	May's encounter with Evans was direct, focused, and provided enough familiarity; court properly applied totality of factors	Admission allowed: May had more than minimal familiarity, especially given observation conditions and temporal proximity
Whether probable cause supported warrant for CSLI	Affidavit failed to establish the defendant used/possessed his cell phone near the crime; insufficient nexus	Probable cause shown by connection of phone number to defendant, ubiquity of cell phones, and timeline of alleged crime	Probable cause existed: reasonable inference that CSLI around the time of the murder would yield relevant evidence
Scope of CSLI search—overbreadth	Warrant period (June 29–July 5) was excessive, especially the day after the murder	Period requested supported by likelihood that post-crime CSLI can aid conviction by showing movements/disposal of evidence	Warrant valid for June 29–July 3 only; after that, insufficient nexus—error harmless because only relevant CSLI was introduced
Jury instructions on identification testimony	No special instructions, risking undue weight on May's identification	Cautionary instructions sufficient; jurors were told they were ultimate finders of fact for identification	Jury properly instructed twice that identification was ultimately their decision

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gore, 342 Conn. 129 (Conn. 2022) (sets forth factors for admissibility of lay opinion identification from surveillance media under Connecticut Evidence Code)
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2018) (warrant generally required for obtaining CSLI due to privacy concerns)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (recognizes pervasive role of cell phones and privacy concerns for searches)
State v. Bruny, 342 Conn. 169 (Conn. 2022) (applies factors for lay opinion identification from surveillance images)
State v. Smith, 344 Conn. 229 (Conn. 2022) (standards for probable cause in warrant affidavits)