183 Conn. App. 623
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Sept. 10, 2013 a shooting left one victim dead and four wounded; Raashon Jackson (defendant) was charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and multiple first‑degree assaults; he and co‑defendant Rogers were tried jointly.
- Anderson (driver) wore a GPS bracelet; Rogers and Jackson rode together, left the car, shot at a group, then returned to the car; surveillance video and other circumstantial evidence tied Jackson to the scene.
- The state retained Hartford Police Sgt. Andrew Weaver to analyze GPS and cell‑phone call detail records using GeoTime and to produce a PowerPoint mapping phone connections to cell sites.
- Weaver’s PowerPoint and resume were disclosed to defense counsel seven days before trial began; defense moved to preclude Weaver or obtain a 6‑week continuance to retain an expert. The trial court denied preclusion and denied the requested long continuance but excluded two slides and allowed limited conferral with Weaver.
- Additional disputed rulings: trial court denied admission of (1) testimony from the defendant’s investigator about a cell‑site related to an unmapped 2:14 p.m. call, (2) testimony that a gun later recovered from a third party fired casings matching those from the scene, and (3) excluded claims that a Porter hearing was required before admitting Weaver’s expert testimony.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Jackson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Late disclosure of Weaver and denial of 6‑week continuance | Late disclosure was inadvertent, Weaver’s work was not novel, and short cure measures sufficed | Late disclosure prejudiced defense by preventing retention of a rebuttal expert; preclusion or extended continuance required | No abuse of discretion: no bad faith, court limited slides, allowed confer/refashioning and short delay; six‑week continuance would have been disruptive and defendant failed to renew at end of direct |
| Failure to hold Porter hearing before admitting cell‑site expert (Edwards issue) | No Porter hearing requested at trial; evidentiary claim is unpreserved | Edwards requires Porter hearings for cell‑site evidence; retroactivity means claim should be reviewable despite not being requested | Unreviewable: defendant did not request a Porter hearing and conceded admissibility through a proper expert; unpreserved evidentiary claim not reviewed despite Edwards’ retroactivity recognition |
| Exclusion of investigator Smith’s testimony about 2:14 p.m. call site | Smith’s proffer lacked foundation about tower existence/coverage and couldn’t establish exact tower/coverage zones | Smith used same records, identified lat/long, visited site and could rebut Weaver to show Jackson elsewhere at 2:14 p.m. | No abuse: proffer failed to establish adequate foundation (coverage area, tower status); defense did not request an out‑of‑jury proffer/hearing |
| Exclusion of evidence that a gun later recovered from third party (Aug. 2014) matched casings | The gun found nearly one year later was too remote and lacked connection to third‑party presence at the crime | The matching gun is highly relevant and exculpatory—only direct tie of a particular weapon to the shooting, not tied to Jackson | No abuse: court reasonably found the later recovery too remote to make it probable Jackson was not a shooter; relevancy insufficient to admit |
| Admission of failures to appear (consciousness of guilt evidence) | Judicial notice and limited instruction properly allowed inference that failure to appear after shooting could reflect consciousness of guilt; probative > prejudicial | Evidence was speculative, defendant lacked notice of dates, and the court knew a gun was found which might explain absence | No abuse: jury could reasonably infer consciousness of guilt; evidence not unduly prejudicial and alternative innocent explanations go to weight, not admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (1997) (establishes trial court hearing for admissibility of scientific/expert evidence)
- State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97 (2017) (police testimony about cell‑site analysis requires expert qualification and Porter hearing)
- State v. Cooke, 134 Conn. App. 573 (2012) (sanctions for discovery violations; factors for remedial orders)
- State v. Beaulieu, 118 Conn. App. 1 (2009) (trial court’s discretion in discovery sanctions)
- State v. Coccomo, 302 Conn. 664 (2011) (standards for consciousness of guilt evidence)
- State v. Hill, 307 Conn. 689 (2013) (factors for undue prejudice when admitting probative evidence)