State v. Rogers
Citations
- 344 Conn. 343
Syllabus
Convicted of the crimes of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and assault in the first degree, the defendant appealed. The defendant and his cousin, A, had been driving when they stopped to pick up the defendant's friend, J. They then drove to a housing complex, where the defendant and J exited the car and shot five individuals, one of whom died. The defendant and J returned to A's car and left the scene. Because A was on probation, he wore a global positioning system (GPS) device that tracked his movement. Thereafter, the defendant and J were arrested, and their cases were consolidated and tried jointly. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine seeking either the preclusion of evidence of information pertaining to the location of his cell phone or 344 AUGUST, 2022 344 Conn. 343 State v. Rogers a hearing pursuant to State v. Porter (241 Conn. 57) to determine the scientific reliability of such evidence. The trial court did not rule on the defendant's motion, and he did not renew it at trial. The state never disclosed an expert witness, but, when jury selection began, the state provided the defendant with a list of witnesses, which included W, whom it identified only as a police officer. Seven days before evidence began, the state provided the defendant with W's resume and a copy of a slideshow presentation, prepared by W, that purportedly charted the location of the defendant's and J's cell phones, and A's GPS device around the time of the shooting. J filed a motion in limine to preclude W's testimony because of the state's untimely disclosure of W as an expert on cell site location data. The defendant's counsel did not file a similar motion, join J's motion, or raise any concerns regarding the untimely disclosure at the hearing on J's motion. The court denied J's motion, and, at trial, W's testimony and cell site location data showed that J, but not the defendant or A, had been near the crime scene at the time of the shooting. The defendant did not
Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court· 1993-06-28· cited 21,376×
- United States v. OlanoSupreme Court· 1993-04-26· cited 16,571×
- Connecticut v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-05-20· cited 268×
- State v. WaltonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-08-03· cited 157×
- United States v. Billy W. Gray, Lee Andrew Fennell, Roger Lee Wright, Ronald Cecil Barker and Vance C. DyarFifth Circuit· 1980-09-26· cited 149×
- United States v. Dharamdeo Babwah and Deodath MaharajSecond Circuit· 1992-08-06· cited 80×
- State v. GouldSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-05-20· cited 58×
- State v. DahlgrenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-07-22· cited 41×
- State v. TurnerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-02-18· cited 38×
- United States v. Cardales-LunaFirst Circuit· 2011-01-20· cited 35×
- United States v. Dan Anderson, United States of America v. Tosun Ates YorukSixth Circuit· 1978-10-19· cited 35×
- State v. BischoffSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-01-15· cited 32×
- United States v. Evaristo Rivera Pedin, Raymond ArrastiaEleventh Circuit· 1988-12-21· cited 31×
- State v. PelletierSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-04-23· cited 28×
- Williams v. PeopleSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands· 2013-11-05· cited 24×
- State v. JacksonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-03-03· cited 22×
- People v. RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals· 1963-12-30· cited 18×
- Rivera v. PeopleSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands· 2016-05-04· cited 12×
- Fennell v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1980-12-08· cited 8×
- State v. MontwheelerCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 2016-04-13· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.