State v. Johnson, 157 A.3d 120

On Oct. 21, 2012 Christian Garcia was shot to death in Brendan Towers (a known marijuana-dealing context); police recovered .40 cal casings and bullets. Defendant Rashid A. Johnson arrived at a nearby hospital with a gunshot wound the same evening.
Defendant told officers he was shot while walking on Whalley Ave.; hospital video and a driver’s admission showed he arrived by car, and cell records showed calls between defendant and Garcia shortly before the murder.
A witness (Fernando Perez Morales) saw a young Black male with a black Monster-logo hoodie and a handgun in Garcia’s apartment hallway but could not positively identify the defendant at trial.
While incarcerated, defendant wrote a letter implicating Perez Morales as involved; police also had other evidence linking defendant to the scene (partial DNA match on a bullet, clothing similarities, witnesses placing defendant at or near Brendan Towers).
At trial the jury convicted Johnson of murder, robbery and carrying a pistol without a permit; defendant appealed, arguing (1) hearsay admission via officer testimony about restaurant patrons and (2) exclusion of evidence regarding police investigation of a third-party suspect (Rochelle Carmichael).

Issue	State's Argument	Johnson's Argument	Held
1. Admission of officer Jackson’s testimony that no restaurant patrons reported hearing/seeing gunshots (hearsay)	Testimony was admissible as a yes/no foundation for the officer’s canvass and was largely cumulative; any error was harmless given the strength of the case.	Admission conveyed out-of-court statements to prove the negative fact (no one heard/seen shots) and was inadmissible hearsay.	Assuming error, it was harmless — testimony was cumulative (similar testimony from other officers) and the remaining evidence strongly supported conviction.
2. Exclusion of testimony that police continued investigating third-party suspect Carmichael after defendant’s arrest	Record is inadequate to review claim about continued investigation; and the jury already heard that Carmichael was not swabbed for GSR; trial allowed presentation of facts showing her possible culpability.	Exclusion prevented showing investigative deficiencies (continued investigation and failure to test hands/clothes for gunshot residue), impeding defendant’s right to present a defense and raising reasonable doubt.	(a) Claim that court excluded evidence police continued investigating Carmichael was unpreserved — no offer of proof, so appellate review barred. (b) Any exclusion about failure to test for GSR was harmless because the jury already heard that Carmichael was not swabbed; evidence was cumulative.

State v. Foster, 293 Conn. 327 (discusses hearsay definition and standards)
State v. Kerr, 120 Conn. App. 203 (harmless-error framework for nonconstitutional evidentiary rulings)
State v. Bonner, 290 Conn. 468 (factors for harmless-error analysis)
State v. Wright, 322 Conn. 270 (admissibility and limits on evidence attacking adequacy of police investigation)
State v. Benedict, 313 Conn. 494 (need for offer of proof to preserve evidentiary record)
State v. Barnes, 232 Conn. 740 (limitations on using cross-examination to explore speculative bias without foundation)
State v. Santiago, 224 Conn. 325 (record may sometimes be adequate to show relevance absent offer of proof)
State v. Conrod, 198 Conn. 592 (purpose and necessity of offers of proof to preserve appellate record)
State v. Santos, 318 Conn. 412 (harmlessness review where constitutional error is alleged)
State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785 (harmless-error analysis where testimony unlikely distorted jury’s view)