State v. Tyus, 342 Conn. 784

Background

Victim Todd Thomas was shot and killed outside Ernie’s Café in New London on Dec. 23, 2006; defendant Gerjuan Tyus and codefendant Darius Armadore were charged with murder (conspiracy counts later dismissed as time‑barred).
Tyus and Armadore had a prior violent history with the victim: earlier exchanges of gunfire left Tyus wounded and Armadore overheard vowing revenge.
Physical evidence: nine mm casings at both the earlier Willetts Avenue shooting and the murder scene matched; a rented silver Impala used that night contained Tyus’s and Armadore’s DNA and a bloodlike substance with genetic similarities to the victim.
Alibi conflict: Tyus and Armadore claimed they drove from Boston to the Norwich nightclub (Bella Notte) and were together at the time of the murder; CSLI from their phones (and witness testimony) suggested they were in New London near the time of the shooting.
Ballistics analyst Petillo (primary examiner) prepared a report but died before trial; technical reviewer Stephenson testified at trial about his own review and, at times, about Petillo’s findings.
Trial court granted the state’s motion to join Tyus’s and Armadore’s cases; jury convicted Tyus of murder; the Appellate Court affirmed and the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Tyus's Argument	Held
Whether joinder of Tyus’s and Armadore’s cases was improper because Ebrahimi’s testimony about Armadore’s confession would be inadmissible against Tyus absent a conspiracy charge	Joinder proper: offenses arise from same transaction, evidence cross‑admissible, defenses not antagonistic (both claimed same alibi)	Joinder prejudicial because Armadore’s admission could only be used against Tyus under coconspirator hearsay exception, but conspiracy charge was dismissed	Affirmed: joinder not an abuse of discretion; coconspirator exception is not limited to pending conspiracy charges and other joinder factors supported consolidation
Whether admission of Tyus’s historical CSLI (obtained without a warrant) violated Carpenter and requires reversal	Even if Carpenter applies, any error was harmless because (1) Armadore’s CSLI, witness testimony, DNA, rented‑car evidence, motive, and inconsistent statements place Tyus near scene	CSLI obtained without warrant violated Fourth Amendment under Carpenter and prejudiced Tyus	Did not decide Carpenter error; held any constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given cumulative and strong inculpatory evidence
Whether admitting Stephenson’s testimony that relayed Petillo’s findings (primary examiner) violated Sixth Amendment confrontation rights	Stephenson conducted his own independent review and reached conclusions; any reliance on Petillo’s work did not create confrontation violation or was harmless	Testimony impermissibly conveyed Petillo’s testimonial findings without opportunity to cross‑examine Petillo (Crawford/Bullcoming/Melendez‑Diaz issues)	Court agrees confrontation violation occurred for parts of Stephenson’s testimony that relayed Petillo’s findings, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because testimony was cumulative and other strong evidence supported the verdict

Key Cases Cited

Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (U.S. 2018) (CSLI generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (testimonial forensic reports require opportunity for confrontation)
Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (lab analysts’ reports are testimonial and implicate confrontation rights)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay inadmissible unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross‑examine)
State v. Lebrick, 334 Conn. 492 (Conn. 2020) (permitting technical reviewer’s testimony limited to independent conclusions when underlying reports not put before jury)
State v. Brown, 331 Conn. 258 (Conn. 2019) (applied Carpenter to CSLI obtained without a warrant)
State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115 (Conn. 2012) (joinder principles and efficiency considerations)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (preservation and review standard for unpreserved constitutional claims)