State v. Lebrick
178 A.3d 1064
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- On May 6, 2010, defendant Horvil F. Lebrick and two cousins entered Omari Barrett’s East Hartford apartment; an exchange of gunfire followed, killing Barrett’s two cousins and Shawna Lee Hudson. Lebrick was convicted by a jury of felony murder and related offenses and sentenced to 90 years (two conspiracy convictions later vacated).
- Keisha Parks (fianc\u00e9e of one deceased cousin) testified at the defendant’s probable cause hearing implicating the defendant; she did not appear at trial and the state sought to read her prior testimony into the record.
- The state presented testimony from investigators about efforts to locate Parks (calls to last-known numbers, searches of police/national/CLEAR databases, and investigator visits to addresses); Parks was not found.
- Gerard Petillo, a forensic ballistic analyst who prepared a ballistic report, died before trial. James Stephenson, another lab analyst who reviewed Petillo’s work as technical reviewer, testified at trial based on his independent review of photos/reports (not Petillo’s report as an exhibit).
- Defendant moved to exclude Parks’ prior testimony (hearsay/confrontation) and to preclude Stephenson (confrontation and foundational/relevancy objections). Trial court admitted Parks’ prior testimony and allowed Stephenson to testify; defendant appeals these rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Parks’ former testimony under hearsay exception (§ 8-6(1)) | State: Parks unavailable; prior testimony involved substantially similar issues and defendant had cross-examined her previously. | Lebrick: State failed to prove unavailability (insufficient diligence); thus hearsay exception inapplicable. | Court: No abuse of discretion — state made good-faith/due-diligence efforts (calls, database searches, investigator visits); prior cross-exam available. |
| Confrontation clause re: Parks’ former testimony | State: Crawford satisfied because declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine at probable-cause hearing. | Lebrick: Admission of Parks’ testimonial prior testimony violated Sixth Amendment. | Court: No violation — Parks was unavailable and defendant had a full and fair prior opportunity to cross-examine. |
| Admissibility/relevancy of Stephenson’s ballistic testimony (§ 4-1 / foundational) | State: Stephenson formed independent opinions from photos/reports and is subject to cross-examination; testimony relevant to linking different firearms. | Lebrick: Testimony lacked foundation because relied on Petillo’s work; relevancy/foundation not established tying materials to the case. | Court: Relevancy objection not preserved in the form raised on appeal; claim unreviewable. |
| Confrontation clause re: Stephenson relying on Petillo’s (deceased) report | State: Petillo’s report not introduced; Stephenson testified to his own conclusions and was cross-examinable. | Lebrick: Admission functionally introduced Petillo’s testimonial report through a surrogate, violating Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming. | Court: No violation — only Stephenson’s in-court, cross-examinable conclusions were admitted; Petillo’s report was not offered and defendant could confront Stephenson about his bases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay requires unavailability and prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (forensic certificates are testimonial; defendant entitled to confront the analyst)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (prosecution may not introduce a lab report through testimony of an analyst who did not perform or observe the test)
- Williams v. Illinois, 567 U.S. 50 (fractured decision on use of outside lab results by testifying expert; no clear controlling rationale)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (method for interpreting fragmented Supreme Court decisions)
- State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207 (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and hearsay questions)
- State v. Lopez, 239 Conn. 56 (proponent must show due diligence to declare witness unavailable)
- State v. Buckland, 313 Conn. 205 (discussion of confrontation clause in forensic evidence context)
- State v. Swinton, 268 Conn. 781 (deference to trial court factual findings in confrontation/unavailability inquiries)