State v. Turner
Citations
- 334 Conn. 660
Syllabus
Convicted of the crimes of felony murder, robbery in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, the defendant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that his federal due process right to a fair trial was violated when the trial court improperly admitted testimony from a police officer, W, and other evidence regarding the location of the defen- dant's cell phone on the day of the victim's murder. The victim had been fatally shot while standing on a sidewalk when he was approached by two people who fired a series of gunshots. The victim's medallion and gold chain were later recovered at a nearby pawn shop. W testified that he had performed a call detail mapping analysis of the defendant's cell phone, which the police recovered after the shooting, and generated cell tower coverage maps and a time lapse video showing the movement of the cell phone. The state relied on the cell tower coverage maps to establish that the defendant was in the area of the crime scene at the time of the shooting and in the area of the pawn shop after the shooting. The Appellate Court concluded that the defendant's claim was unpre- served and unreviewable under State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233), as modified by In re Yasiel R. (317 Conn. 773), because it was evidentiary and not constitutional in nature. In addition, the Appellate Court declined to review the defendant's claim under the plain error doctrine, conclud- ing that defense counsel had assented to the admission of the cell phone evidence that the defendant claimed violated his right to due process. The Appellate Court also declined to review the defendant's claim under its supervisory authority over the administration of justice, concluding that the defendant had failed to present extraordinary circumstances that warranted such review. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. On the granting of certification, the defen- dant appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the Appella
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- constitutional claim arising from evidentiary error can be preserved by ‘‘objecting to [the witness’] testimony’’
- ‘‘ ‘[i]t is axiomatic that the trial court’s proper application of the law existing at the time of trial cannot constitute reversible error under the plain error doctrine’ ’’
- appellant ‘‘may present only those issues for which certification has been granted’’
- ‘‘[a] claim of evidentiary error . . . premised on a generalized violation of a party’s due process right is constitutional in nature [only] if the harm resulting from the error is sufficient to require a new trial’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. RhodesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-03-27· cited 39×
- Seramonte Associates, LLC v. HamdenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-10-18· cited 36×
- State v. PattersonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-08-09· cited 18×
- State v. DiazSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-04-09· cited 17×
- State v. TomlinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-09-08· cited 13×
- State v. Adam P.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-02-11· cited 11×
- In re Aisjaha N.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-06-20· cited 7×
- Dept. of Public Health v. EstradaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-06-11· cited 6×
- State v. DixonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-09-16· cited 5×
- State v. RogersSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-08-16· cited 4×
- State v. MassaroSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-07-11· cited 3×
- State v. KingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-08-08· cited 1×
- State v. McFarlandSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-09-02· cited 1×
- State v. Michael T.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-04-22
- State v. Raeon A.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2026-06-23
Cites
39 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×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- Henderson v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2013-02-20· cited 809×
- Connecticut v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-05-20· cited 268×
- Hoult v. HoultFirst Circuit· 1995-05-22· cited 153×
- George Danny Collins v. Charles ScullySecond Circuit· 1985-02-06· cited 150×
- State v. JoynerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-05-04· cited 123×
- United States v. Anthony Bruno, Angelo Cerasulo, John Imbrieco, Mario Fortunato and Carmine PolitoSecond Circuit· 2004-09-14· cited 121×
- State v. HamptonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-09-15· cited 98×
- State v. PattersonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-12-20· cited 95×
- State v. McClainSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2017-03-14· cited 85×
- State v. ReidSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-09-05· cited 61×
- State v. RyersonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-09-02· cited 60×
- Luurtsema v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-01-05· cited 52×
- State v. HolleySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-01-12· cited 51×
- State v. SullivanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-05-12· cited 50×
- State v. DiazSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-08-16· cited 49×
- State v. DARRYL W.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-01-10· cited 45×
- Prentice v. Dalco Electric, Inc.Supreme Court· 2007-03-05· cited 36×
- State v. MartinezConnecticut Appellate Court· 2006-05-02· cited 32×
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.