334 Conn. 492
Conn.2020Background
- Early May 2010: Lebrick traveled from New York with two cousins (the Moses twins) to East Hartford to rob an apartment; shots were fired, the twins were killed, and the victim was fatally shot. Lebrick was later arrested and tried for felony murder and related offenses.
- Keisha Parks (fiancée of one twin) testified reluctantly at probable cause hearing that Lebrick confessed he kicked in the door, took the victim’s gun, intended to rob, and shot his way out; Parks did not appear at trial.
- The prosecution located Parks only after jury selection (late Aug/early Sept 2014). Inspector Hightower ran limited database searches and forwarded three New York addresses to a Brooklyn investigator, who visited them during business hours multiple times without success. No further follow-up was done.
- Gerard Petillo (forensic examiner) prepared a ballistic report and photos and later died. James Stephenson, a co‑worker and technical reviewer who examined some bullets, testified at trial about ballistic findings; Petillo’s report itself was not admitted.
- Trial court admitted Parks’ prior probable cause hearing testimony and Stephenson’s expert testimony; jury convicted Lebrick. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification.
- Holding: Supreme Court reversed as to Parks’ testimony (confrontation violation; new trial), but upheld admission of Stephenson’s testimony (no confrontation violation where expert gave independent opinion and underlying report was not admitted).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lebrick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parks’ prior testimony could be admitted under the Confrontation Clause/§8‑6(1) because she was "unavailable" | State: made reasonable, diligent, good‑faith efforts to locate Parks (database searches, interstate summons, NY service attempts) | Lebrick: searches were limited and belated; NY in‑person efforts were minimal (business hours only) and no follow‑up, so Parks was not shown unavailable | Reversed: State did not meet constitutional standard for unavailability given Parks’ central, inculpatory role and serious charges; prior testimony admission violated Confrontation Clause; new trial ordered |
| Whether Stephenson’s in‑court expert testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because it relied on Petillo’s (decedent) ballistic report | State: Stephenson formed independent conclusions after reviewing evidence; underlying report and photos were not admitted and jury was not told their substance | Lebrick: Stephenson’s opinion was effectively a conduit for Petillo’s testimonial report and deprived Lebrick of cross‑examining the original analyst | Affirmed as to this issue: No Confrontation Clause violation where (1) underlying report was not admitted or presented to jury for its truth, and (2) Stephenson testified to his independent conclusions subject to cross‑examination |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay inadmissible unless defendant had prior opportunity to cross‑examine)
- Hardy v. Cross, 565 U.S. 65 (2011) (witness is unavailable only if prosecutors made good‑faith effort to secure presence)
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) (reasonableness inquiry for producing witnesses; prosecution must show good‑faith efforts)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic reports may be testimonial and implicate confrontation)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (analytic report admitted for its truth requires live testimony of the analyst or similar confrontation protections)
- State v. Walker, 332 Conn. 678 (Conn. 2019) (expert may rely on others’ work but cannot relay testimonial out‑of‑court statements to jury; expert’s independent judgment is admissible)