State v. Tyus
Citations
- 342 Conn. 784
Syllabus
Convicted of the crime of murder in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed. Prior to the shooting, the defendant was involved in a dispute with the victim, after which the victim drove by the defendant's apartment and shot the defendant, and the defendant fired back at the victim. The defendant's close friend, A, thereafter stated an intention to seek revenge against the victim. Approximately two weeks later, the victim was shot and killed at a café in New London. In an interview with the police after the victim's murder, the defendant told them that, on the night of the victim's murder, he and A had traveled directly from Boston to a nightclub in Norwich located approximately twelve miles away from the café, thereby indicating that he and A were not present at the café at the time of the murder. The defendant and A were subsequently charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder, but the conspiracy charges were dismissed prior to trial. The trial court granted the state's motion to join the cases against the defen- dant and A for trial. At trial, A's girlfriend, E, testified that A told her that he had shot someone on the night the victim was killed. Bullet casings from the scene of the shooting at the defendant's apartment and from the murder scene were submitted to the state forensic laboratory. A ballistics analyst, P, examined the evidence and generated a written report containing his findings. S, who also was employed at the labora- 342 Conn. 784 APRIL, 2022 785 State v. Tyus tory, served as a technical reviewer of P's report. P died before trial and was therefore unavailable to testify. The state subsequently sought to admit testimony from S, and the court denied the defendant's motion to preclude S's testimony. The jury found the defendant guilty of murder as a principal or an accessory. The Appellate Court affirmed the defen- dant's conviction, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this co
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- CSLI of codefendant was admitted into evidence when defendant and codefendant admitted to being together entire evening during which crime was committed
- this court assumed without deciding that collection of CSLI for period of three days was nonetheless search because of sensitive nature of that information
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2004-03-08· cited 14,756×
- Griffith v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1987-01-13· cited 3,380×
- Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 2009-06-25· cited 2,882×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- Carpenter v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2018-06-22· cited 1,201×
- Williams v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 2012-06-18· cited 994×
- State v. WhelanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-05· cited 393×
- California v. TybergSupreme Court· 1986-12-01· cited 383×
- State v. PeelerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-10-12· cited 157×
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-11-25· cited 99×
- State v. BoothSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-09-14· cited 89×
- State v. WhiteSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-03-16· cited 76×
- Gallo v. United States Attorney's OfficeSupreme Court· 2000-04-03· cited 74×
- Brown v. ConnecticutSupreme Court· 2000-04-03· cited 72×
- State v. VinalSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-02-18· cited 49×
- State v. CabralSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-09-20· cited 34×
- State v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-02-25· cited 26×
- State v. LebrickSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-01-28· cited 17×
- State v. MarionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1978-05-30· cited 15×
- State v. ArmadoreSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-03-23· cited 15×
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.