State v. Montanez, 185 Conn. App. 589

Defendant Elizardo Montanez was convicted of murder, conspiracy to violate drug laws, carrying a pistol without a permit, and later convicted of criminal possession of a firearm; probation was revoked.
During jury deliberations, jurors reported a bullet hole in the jury room window that they said was not present the prior day.
Trial court notified police/maintenance, moved jury to a different room, instructed the jury that the hole was unrelated to the case and they must decide only on evidence presented, and asked the jury (as a group) whether they could follow the instruction. The jury returned a note saying it could continue without prejudice.
Defendant moved for a mistrial and later for a new trial arguing the bullet-hole incident caused irreparable prejudice and that Brown required a more extensive inquiry (including individual juror questioning). Trial court denied relief.
Separately, the court admitted FBI Special Agent Wines’ drive-test survey data and related expert testimony about cell-site coverage (conducted ~20 months after the shooting); defendant challenged admissibility under the Porter reliability/fit framework.
Court held Wines’ methodology admissible under Porter; even if improperly admitted, any error was harmless given other corroborating evidence (historical cell-site records, witness testimony, confessions).

Issue	State's Argument	Montanez's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying mistrial after jurors discovered a bullet hole during deliberations	Court complied with Brown: investigated on record, instructed jury, asked whether they could follow instruction; incident unrelated to case; jury said it could continue	Bullet hole created an external threat to jury safety and possible bias that cannot be cured by group instruction; Brown inquiry insufficient	No abuse of discretion. Brown inquiry was adequate here; incident not presumptively prejudicial and curative instruction + jury assurance supported denial of mistrial
Whether drive-test survey data (post-event RF measurements) was admissible under Porter (reliability)	Method is field-tested and routinely used by industry and law enforcement; agent’s training/experience and industry practice support reliability	No peer-reviewed studies, no rate-of-error, test conducted 20 months after event undermines reliability and fit	No abuse of discretion. Trial court properly found methodology sufficiently reliable; challenges go to weight/fit and cross-examination; admission harmless in any event

State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502 (trial courts must conduct a preliminary on-the-record inquiry when presented with allegations of jury misconduct)
State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (establishes flexible Porter/Daubert-style admissibility factors and fit requirement for scientific evidence)
State v. Dixon, 318 Conn. 495 (Brown inquiry is sufficient for fear-related juror concerns; individualized questioning not always required)
Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (prejudice presumed only when court implicated or external contact relates directly to the merits)
State v. Berrios, 320 Conn. 265 (discusses scope of inquiry and circumstances warranting individual juror questioning)