334 Conn. 660
Conn.2020Background
- On July 13, 2013, Miguel Rodriguez was fatally shot in Hartford. The defendant’s cell phone was recovered shortly thereafter; pawn shop records showed the victim’s gold chain and medallion had been sold nearby.
- Police obtained Sprint call detail records for the defendant’s phone. Detective/Sergeant Andrew Weaver used Oculus GeoTime to produce cell-tower coverage maps and a time-lapse showing the phone’s movement, placing the phone near the pawn shop and near the crime scene at relevant times.
- Weaver testified about mapping and tower coverage (and was treated as an expert by the court), but the state did not disclose him as an expert and the defense did not object or request a Porter hearing at trial.
- The jury convicted the defendant of felony murder, first‑degree robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding the unpreserved evidentiary claim was not reviewable under Golding and declining plain‑error and supervisory review.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification to address whether Edwards/Porter required a Porter hearing for cell‑tower evidence and whether the failure to hold one warranted Golding, plain‑error, or supervisory relief.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Turner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Turner is entitled to Golding review of his unpreserved claim that the trial court should have held a Porter hearing before admitting cell‑tower maps | Turner failed to preserve the claim; Edwards requires a request for a Porter hearing, not a sua sponte hearing | Edwards created a new rule that required a Porter hearing for cell‑tower evidence and should apply retroactively; failure to request was excusable | No Golding relief: defendant failed to show any error. Edwards does not require courts to hold Porter hearings sua sponte; absent objection/request the claim is unpreserved and record is inadequate to show constitutional error |
| Whether the failure to hold a Porter hearing constitutes plain error (Turner's request to adopt the federal plain‑error temporal standard) | Connecticut’s plain‑error doctrine measures plainness by law at time of trial; no relief | Ask court to adopt federal approach (assess plainness at time of appeal), making Edwards retroactively plain error | Declined to adopt federal standard; no plain error because law at trial did not clearly require a Porter hearing for cell data |
| Whether the cell‑tower maps failed Porter’s "fit" prong (i.e., maps were not demonstrably tied to Weaver’s methodology and could not prove location at specific times) | Without a Porter hearing or objection, the record is inadequate to assess fit; state may have presented additional methodology evidence if required | Maps did not satisfy fit and were incapable of proving the phone (or defendant) was at specific addresses at specific times; error was crucial to the prosecution’s case | Record inadequate to assess fit absent a Porter hearing; defendant failed to establish evidentiary or constitutional error |
| Whether the court should exercise supervisory authority to review the unpreserved claim | Supervisory review is unnecessary; existing bypass doctrines (Golding/plain error) suffice; Edwards requires hearings only upon request | Exceptional circumstances and uniformity of Edwards warrant supervisory review to correct inconsistent application | Denied: this case lacks the extraordinary circumstances required; Edwards does not mandate sua sponte hearings, so supervisory intervention not justified |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97 (Conn. 2017) (cell‑phone mapping testimony is the type of scientific evidence contemplated by Porter and a Porter hearing is required when requested)
- State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (Conn. 1997) (adopting Daubert‑style reliability and fit gatekeeping for scientific evidence)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (criteria for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (Conn. 2015) (modification/clarification to Golding framework)
- Weaver v. McKnight, 313 Conn. 393 (Conn. 2014) (party opposing scientific evidence must object and request a Porter hearing or waive the claim)
- State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802 (Conn. 2017) (Connecticut plain‑error doctrine measures plainness against law at time of trial and differs from federal approach)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (federal framework for reliability and relevance of scientific expert testimony)