State v. Jackson, 334 Conn. 793

Background:

September 10, 2013 shooting at Beardsley Terrace in Bridgeport: one person killed, four injured; defendant (Jackson) charged with murder, conspiracy, and four counts of first‑degree assault.
State consolidated Jackson’s case with co‑defendant Rogers; Anderson (driver) testified he picked up Jackson near the scene; identity of the second shooter was contested.
Months before trial the court ordered the state to disclose expert witnesses; the state listed Sergeant Andrew Weaver among many potential witnesses but did not identify him as an expert until October 1 — seven days before evidence began — and produced his PowerPoint mapping CSLI data one day later.
Jackson filed a motion in limine to preclude Weaver or, alternatively, for a continuance to retain a CSLI expert; the trial court denied exclusion and refused a reasonable continuance, granting only brief recesses and a one‑night delay for limited clarification.
Weaver testified as a CSLI expert, presenting mapped snapshots suggesting Jackson’s phone was in the same coverage areas as Rogers’ phone and Anderson’s GPS around the shooting time; this was the only objective evidence placing Jackson near the scene.
The jury convicted Jackson; the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the late‑disclosed CSLI expert without first granting a reasonable continuance and that the error was harmful — ordering a new trial.

Issues:

Issue	State's Argument	Jackson's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by allowing state’s late‑disclosed CSLI expert to testify without granting a continuance	Late disclosure was excusable; court gave short accommodations and allowed cross‑examination; exclusion would be draconian	State’s eleventh‑hour disclosure prevented retaining a rebuttal CSLI expert and deprived meaningful ability to challenge technical testimony	Trial court abused discretion by permitting testimony without first affording a reasonable continuance; error was harmful — new trial ordered
Whether denial of a continuance was reasonable	Defense abandoned the request during trial and received limited time to prepare; cross‑examination mitigated prejudice	Defense never abandoned the request and brief recesses were insufficient to obtain funding and retain a CSLI expert	Denial was an abuse of discretion in absence of a reasonable continuance (tied to result above)
Whether exclusion of defense investigator’s CSLI testimony was proper	(State did not contest in opinion summary)	Investigator proffered to mitigate harm from not having retained an expert	Court declined to address on appeal because retrial will likely change the record and defendant can secure his own expert
Whether admission of evidence of defendant’s unrelated failure to appear as consciousness of guilt was an abuse of discretion	Admission was proper and corroborative	Admission unfairly prejudiced and was distinct from charged conduct	Court declined to resolve; record could differ on retrial so issue left to trial court

Key Cases Cited

State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97 (explaining CSLI analysis is beyond juror ken and requires Porter hearing)
State v. Festo, 181 Conn. 254 (continuance or additional time is an appropriate remedy for late disclosure)
State v. Respass, 256 Conn. 164 (factors for discovery sanctions: reasons for nondisclosure, prejudice, feasibility of cure)
State v. Gunning, 183 Conn. 299 (continuing duty to disclose and timeliness under Practice Book)
Rullo v. General Motors Corp., 208 Conn. 74 (continuance ordinarily proper method to cure late disclosure prejudice)
State v. Eleck, 314 Conn. 123 (harmless‑error standard for nonconstitutional errors)