181 Conn. App. 535
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- On July 13, 2013, the victim was shot and killed on Flatbush Avenue in Hartford; a gold chain and medallion were missing thereafter and later sold at K & M Jewelry.
- Police linked the jewelry sale to Lorenzo Christian, who admitted possessing the items; a check from the sale was cashed/deposited via Alexandra Colon (mother of defendant’s child).
- Defendant and Christian were stopped by police on August 6; they fled, defendant dropped a prepaid cell phone that police recovered; Christian was arrested.
- Police subpoenaed the phone records; Sgt. Andrew Weaver produced call-detail mapping (Oculus GeoTime) time-lapse video and screenshots showing the phone’s movement on July 13; Weaver was qualified as an expert at trial and the exhibits were admitted without defense objection.
- At trial the state presented eyewitness ID testimony, Sprint records, Weaver’s mapping, and related circumstantial evidence; jury convicted defendant of felony murder, first‑degree robbery, and conspiracy to commit first‑degree robbery; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree | State: circumstantial proof (phone movement, sale of jewelry, cashing of check, witness IDs) supports finding of agreement and overt act | Turner: no independent evidence of an agreement apart from the robbery itself | Affirmed — viewing the evidence cumulatively and in favor of the verdict, jury reasonably inferred an agreement and overt act supporting conspiracy conviction |
| Admission/qualification of cell‑phone expert and coverage maps | State: Weaver’s testimony and mapping were admissible and relevant; no Porter/Edwards issue preserved | Turner: admission of scientific cell‑site evidence without Porter hearing (per State v. Edwards) violated due process | Claim unpreserved; not reviewable under Golding (was evidentiary, not constitutional); plain error rejected because defense counsel made strategic choice to not object and relied on the evidence at closing |
| Prosecutorial improprieties during closing/rebuttal | State: argument confined to evidence and reasonable inferences; brief sarcasm responsive to defense | Turner: prosecutor misstated facts, vouched, shifted burden, and used sarcasm to inflame jury | No prosecutorial impropriety requiring reversal — statements were based on evidence or permissible inference, did not improperly vouch or shift burden, and isolated sarcasm was not prejudicial |
| Second supplemental jury instruction on robbery elements | State: court correctly answered jury question and clarified active participation vs mere presence | Turner: instruction misstated/omitted elements, suggested nonunanimous or accessory liability, and intruded on fact‑finding | Affirmed — instruction read in context of full charge was correct; not reasonably possible jury was misled (Golding fails on merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97 (Conn. 2017) (cell‑site evidence and requirement for expert qualification and Porter hearing)
- State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (Conn. 1997) (adopting Daubert‑style admissibility inquiry for scientific evidence)
- State v. Bush, 325 Conn. 272 (Conn. 2017) (standards for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Revels, 313 Conn. 762 (Conn. 2014) (preservation and sufficiency principles; review as though preserved)