State v. Edwards, SC 19735
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | EVELEIGH, J. |
| Citation | 156 A.3d 506,325 Conn. 97 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Eugene EDWARDS, Jr. |
| Decision Date | 11 April 2017 |
| Docket Number | SC 19735 |
325 Conn. 97
156 A.3d 506
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Eugene EDWARDS, Jr.
SC 19735
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Argued December 12, 2016
Officially released April 11, 2017
Timothy H. Everett, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Jonathan M. Sousa, special deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Brian Preleski, state's attorney, and Brett J. Salafia, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and Robinson, Js.
EVELEIGH, J.
The defendant, Eugene Edwards, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the trial court convicting him of home invasion in violation of General Statutes § 53a–100aa(a)(2), robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–134(a)(2), larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–123(a)(3), and assault of an elderly person in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–61a(a)(1)
arising out of an incident in Wethersfield.1 On appeal to this court, the defendant asserts that: (1) the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress certain statements that he had made to police; (2) the trial court abused its discretion when it allowed a police officer to present nonexpert testimony regarding cell phone records and maps; and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We agree with the defendant that the trial court improperly allowed the police officer to present certain testimony regarding the cell phone records and maps, but find such error was harmless. We disagree with the defendant's other claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found. On June 22, 2012, the victim, Lieslotte Worysz, went grocery shopping at a Stop and Shop grocery store in Rocky Hill. After completing her shopping, she returned to her home in Wethersfield. While driving home, the victim noticed a motor vehicle driving behind her. The victim testified that the vehicle was a Chrysler 300 and that she was able to identify its make and model because she and her husband previously owned Chryslers and "were into cars." The victim further stated that the vehicle was "fairly new" and a "light color," explaining as follows: "[It] follow[ed] me [at] a distance ... and I admired [it]. I figured gee, the grill, everything is beautiful. I like it."
Upon returning home, the victim used a remote to open the door to her attached garage and parked her vehicle inside. The victim noticed that the vehicle that
had been following her home was parked behind her in the driveway. As the victim was about to exit her vehicle, the defendant, who was the driver of the vehicle that had follower her, approached her in
the garage, held a black gun to her stomach and demanded money. The victim said to the defendant, "why are you doing this to me? I didn't do nothing to you," and tried to exit her vehicle, but the defendant pushed her back down into the driver's seat and said, "[Y]ou shut up. If you're going to scream. I'm going to hurt you. I'm going to shoot you." The defendant then took the victim's remote and closed the garage door with both of them inside. The defendant grabbed the victim's pocketbook and took the money that was inside. He also took the victim's diamond ring, wedding band, watch, and keys. Afterward, the defendant opened the garage, threw the victim's keys and remote on the driveway, and left the scene. The victim picked up the items that the defendant had discarded, went into her house, and called the police.
When the police arrived, they took several photographs of the scene. The victim told police about the Chrysler 300 and provided a description of the driver, but she could not identify him in a photographic array. Detectives Christopher Morris and James Darby of the Wethersfield Police Department processed the scene and the victim's belongings for fingerprints and DNA analysis. They obtained several latent fingerprints from the driver's door of the victim's vehicle and swabbed the victim's vehicle, remote, and wallet for DNA analysis.
Darby processed the driver's side of the victim's vehicle for fingerprints because the victim "had reported that as she was exiting [her vehicle], she was robbed and made by the suspect to sit back down inside [her vehicle]." Darby took six "hinge lifters" and marked the locations for each lift. Morris sent the lifts to the Hartford Police Department, which found no matches.
Morris then took the lifts to the state forensic laboratory. John Brunetti from the state forensic laboratory testified regarding his analysis of two latent partial prints obtained from the victim's vehicle. He concluded that they matched, respectively, the defendant's left middle and index fingers.
Thereafter, Morris went to the grocery store where the victim had been shopping and obtained the security video from the parking lot. Upon reviewing the video, Morris noted a white vehicle following the victim out of the parking lot. Upon further review of the video, Morris and the other officers noted several characteristics about that vehicle, namely, a black scuff mark on the rear bumper, an E–ZPass or some other form of transponder device on the front windshield, and a third brake light in the center of the vehicle's trunk that did not appear to be functioning properly. The vehicle had a Connecticut license plate on the front bumper, but officers were unable to obtain the plate number from the security video. Morris later showed the video to employees of a Chrysler dealership, who confirmed that the vehicle in the video was a Chrysler 300.
On June 25, 2012, Morris shared information about the case with other police departments and the media in order to obtain investigative leads from members of the public. The report released by the media described the perpetrator of the crime as a black male between thirty and forty years old, approximately five feet ten inches to six feet tall, medium build and short black hair. The report also described the vehicle allegedly used in the robbery, including that it may have had an E–ZPass or other form of transponder device on the front windshield.
The New Britain Police Department provided Morris with information on three white Chrysler 300 vehicles that had some contact with the police, including one
that belonged to the defendant. On June 25, the same day that the media released
information about the robbery, Morris drove to the defendant's address in New Britain and photographed his white Chrysler 300. Morris noticed that the defendant's vehicle had a black scuff mark on its rear bumper, which was consistent with the mark on the vehicle in the surveillance video. Morris then ran the vehicle's plate number through the license plate reader database and discovered that the Newington police had photographed the defendant's front license plate on June 1, 2012. Morris also discovered that the defendant's father, Eugene Edwards, Sr., had an E–ZPass account and that the transponders can easily be transferred between vehicles.
On June 27, 2012, two days after the media released the report of the robbery, Morris asked Officer Ronald Floyd of the Wethersfield Police Department to conduct further surveillance on the defendant's vehicle. Floyd drove to the defendant's house in New Britain and took several photographs of the defendant's vehicle, which was parked approximately 200 yards from the house in a school parking lot. Floyd's photograph of the front of the defendant's vehicle showed that it no longer had a front license plate and that material from the front bumper where the license plate screws had been placed was protruding, which indicated that the plate had recently been removed. Floyd observed two vertical marks on the front windshield, just below the rearview mirror, which were consistent with leftover adhesive from an E–ZPass or other similar transponder device. In Floyd's photograph, there was a New York Giants bumper sticker on the rear bumper, which was not in the photograph of the defendant's vehicle taken two days earlier. In addition, the photograph taken by Floyd showed that white paint had been applied to the black scuff mark on the rear bumper.
On June 28, 2012, officers drove to the defendant's home in New Britain to execute a search warrant. Inside the defendant's house, the officers found the front license plate to the defendant's Chrysler 300, which had been hidden underneath the seat cushion of a sofa. The officers also discovered a black handheld BB gun in a bedroom closet.
The defendant remained outside while the police searched his home. The defendant also volunteered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Turner, AC 40248
...convicted on the basis of "scientific evidence that does not satisfy the reliability safeguards now required by [ State v. Edwards , 325 Conn. 97, 156 A.3d 506 (2017) ]."13 The defendant, however, failed to preserve this claim at trial and seeks review pursuant to State v. Golding......
-
State v. Patel, AC 41821
...2017, the court addressed our Supreme Court's decision, released following the jury's verdict in the present case, in State v. Edwards , 325 Conn. 97, 133, 156 A.3d 506 (2017), which held that the trial court improperly admitted testimony and documentary evidence of historic cell site analy......
-
State v. Pugh, (AC 39688).
...the state presented a strong case against the defendant, even if some of the evidence was circumstantial. See, e.g., State v. Edwards , 325 Conn. 97, 137, 156 A.3d 506 (2017) ("[i]t is immaterial to the probative force of the evidence that it consists, in whole or in part, of circumsta......
-
State v. Jackson, AC 40433
...has not demonstrated that the claimed error was harmful.193 A.3d 602BFollowing our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Edwards , 325 Conn. 97, 156 A.3d 506 (2017), the defendant filed a supplemental brief claiming that "[t]he trial court abused its discretion when it allowed Sergeant ......
-
State v. Turner, AC 40248
...was convicted on the basis of "scientific evidence that does not satisfy the reliability safeguards now required by [ State v. Edwards , 325 Conn. 97, 156 A.3d 506 (2017) ]."13 The defendant, however, failed to preserve this claim at trial and seeks review pursuant to State v. Golding , sup......
-
State v. Patel, AC 41821
...2017, the court addressed our Supreme Court's decision, released following the jury's verdict in the present case, in State v. Edwards , 325 Conn. 97, 133, 156 A.3d 506 (2017), which held that the trial court improperly admitted testimony and documentary evidence of historic cell site analy......
-
State v. Pugh, (AC 39688).
...the state presented a strong case against the defendant, even if some of the evidence was circumstantial. See, e.g., State v. Edwards , 325 Conn. 97, 137, 156 A.3d 506 (2017) ("[i]t is immaterial to the probative force of the evidence that it consists, in whole or in part, of circumstantial......
-
State v. Jackson, AC 40433
...has not demonstrated that the claimed error was harmful.193 A.3d 602BFollowing our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Edwards , 325 Conn. 97, 156 A.3d 506 (2017), the defendant filed a supplemental brief claiming that "[t]he trial court abused its discretion when it allowed Sergeant Weave......