Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.