State v. Tomlinson
Citations
- 340 Conn. 533
Syllabus
Convicted of the crimes of murder and carrying a pistol without a permit in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court. The state's theory was that the defendant and the victim were members of rival gangs, the ''150 gang'' and the ''Green Hollow Boyz,'' respectively, and that the defendant shot the victim in retaliation after the victim had been tried for and acquitted of the murder of H, another 150 gang member. At the time the victim was shot, the defendant's acquaintance, M, was in a nearby car driven by her friend, J. M saw the defendant, whom she knew as ''DT,'' cross the street and then heard gunshots. Meanwhile, J was having a phone conversation with her incarcerated boyfriend, D, on a recorded line. Within minutes of the shooting, M spoke to D and identified the defendant as the shooter. The police also executed a search warrant at the defendant's apartment on the night of the shooting. In one of the bedrooms, they found a mirror, on which someone had written ''150,'' ''GANG'' and ''DT.'' Prior to trial, the defendant sought to preclude evidence of his association with the 150 gang and a rap music video that had been posted on the Internet, which featured the defendant and two other members of the 150 gang, who were handling a gun. The trial court made preliminary rulings denying the defendant's motions. At trial, the state sought to present the expert testimony of A, a gang intelligence sergeant for the Bridgeport Police Department. Defense counsel objected, claiming that A's testimony was inadmissible because it was irrelevant insofar as there was no direct evidence that the defendant belonged to a gang or that the shooting was gang related. He also claimed that A's opinions were based on hearsay and that, as an expert witness, A was not allowed to testify as to hearsay. The trial court overruled the objection, and A testified that his duties included monitoring gang activity in Bridgeport through social media, w
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that expert witnesses often testify in dual capacity as both expert and fact witness
- two ele- ment particles of lead and barium consistent with gunshot residue and one element particles of lead com- monly associated with gunshot residue were admitted at trial
- ‘‘[a]s with any evidence that might suggest a propensity for violence or might play on potential juror biases, defendants should request and trial courts should grant measures to minimize any undue prejudice’’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Keller; Vertefeuille
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. Patrick M.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-09-02· cited 42×
- State v. FisherSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-02-10· cited 12×
- State v. Adam P.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-02-11· cited 11×
- State v. DixonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-09-16· cited 5×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-08-13
- State v. FranquiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2026-04-21
Cites
67 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- United States v. Frank Locascio, and John GottiSecond Circuit· 1993-10-08· cited 495×
- People v. OlguinCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1994-12-30· cited 358×
- United States v. McGloryThird Circuit· 1992-06-19· cited 264×
- United States v. MejiaSecond Circuit· 2008-10-06· cited 249×
- United States v. Edgar Jamal GamoryEleventh Circuit· 2011-03-11· cited 188×
- State v. KellySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-05-08· cited 162×
- United States v. DukagjiniSecond Circuit· 2002-12-27· cited 159×
- State v. SaucierSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-07-17· cited 151×
- United States v. BelfastEleventh Circuit· 2010-07-15· cited 149×
- Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc. v. Committee of ReceiversSupreme Court· 1994-05-02· cited 149×
- Munoz v. Civil Service CommissionSupreme Court· 1976-10-04· cited 142×
- Boyd v. City and County of San FranciscoNinth Circuit· 2009-08-07· cited 139×
- United States v. David CasillasSixth Circuit· 2016-07-21· cited 128×
- United States v. Leon DukagjiniSecond Circuit· 2003-03-11· cited 126×
- United States v. Tommy Cruz, Luis Rodriguez, Carlos MedinaSecond Circuit· 2004-04-02· cited 118×
- State v. CheeseboroSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-08-27· cited 115×
- United States v. WilsonEighth Circuit· 1976-03-26· cited 96×
- State v. WoodsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-08-03· cited 94×
- State v. KirbySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-10-17· cited 92×
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.