State v. Revels, 313 Conn. 762

Background

On March 31, 2009, Bryan Davila was shot and later died; multiple shell casings (.22) were found at scene and a nine‑mm pistol was found near the victim with a spent cartridge still in the chamber.
Eyewitness Fidelia Carrillo (in fifth‑floor apartment ~265 feet away) described the shooter as a Black male with braided hair, wearing a camouflage jacket and red cap; police located and detained Revels minutes later matching that description.
Officers conducted a one‑on‑one showup at ~11:40 p.m.; Carrillo immediately identified Revels at the scene and later made an in‑court identification (after a prior misidentification of an intern at a suppression hearing).
Revels admitted (on recorded interviews) that he was present and that his group exchanged gunfire after the victim allegedly shot first; gunshot residue results were inconclusive.
Revels was tried, convicted of murder (§ 53a-54a), and appealed raising four issues: suppression of identifications, jury view of the scene, sufficiency to disprove self‑defense, and jury instruction on "initial aggressor."

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Revels' Argument	Held
1. Suppression of pretrial and in‑court identifications (one‑on‑one showup)	Showup was justified by exigent public‑safety needs and fresh memory; any suggestiveness was not "unnecessarily" so.	Showup was unnecessarily suggestive (no exigency) and identifications unreliable.	Showup was justified by exigency (armed suspect, recent homicide, impracticability of lineup at that hour); suppression properly denied.
2. Jury viewing the crime scene	Conditions had changed (tree now with leaves); a view would not reflect conditions at time of shooting and thus would not aid jury.	Jury should view scene to assess Carrillo's opportunity to observe (distance, visibility).	Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying view because conditions at trial materially differed from incident.
3. Sufficiency to disprove self‑defense (victim shot first)	Evidence (forensic and testimonial) overwhelmingly showed the nine‑mm near victim could not have been fired at scene; shell evidence and expert testimony undermined claim victim fired first.	Defendant claimed victim shot first, supporting reasonable belief to use deadly force.	State presented sufficient evidence to disprove Revels' asserted theory of self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Jury instruction on "initial aggressor" (phrase "appeared to threaten")	Charge read as a whole included objective reasonableness requirement; no reasonable likelihood jury was misled.	Instruction broadened initial aggressor definition, omitted "reasonably," potentially allowing conviction based on mere words or subjective perception.	No plain error; instruction, in context, properly conveyed requisite reasonable standard.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Theriault, 182 Conn. 366 (Conn. 1980) (two‑pronged test for suggestive identification procedures and reliability)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (establishes reliability inquiry when identification procedure is suggestive)
United States v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2008) (federal articulation of suggestiveness/reliability framework)
State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 (Conn. 2010) (endorsement of two‑prong identification analysis and contextual review)
State v. Ledbetter, 275 Conn. 534 (Conn. 2005) (one‑on‑one showup and exigency factors)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (factors for evaluating eyewitness reliability)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (preservation and review framework for unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Adams, 225 Conn. 270 (Conn. 1993) (sufficiency review and Golding discussion)
State v. Clark, 264 Conn. 723 (Conn. 2003) (allocations of burdens for self‑defense under Connecticut law)
State v. Jimenez, 228 Conn. 335 (Conn. 1994) (instructions must be read as a whole for possible misleading)
State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 (Conn. 2004) (overall charge must fairly present the law)
State v. Darryl W., 303 Conn. 353 (Conn. 2012) (plain error standard clarified)
Dickson v. Yale Univ., 141 Conn. 250 (Conn. 1954) (standard for allowing jury view of scene)
State v. Boutilier, 133 Conn. App. 493 (Conn. App. 2012) (courts should ensure conditions at view match incident conditions)