State v. Tyus

• Citation: 342 Conn. 784,272 A.3d 132
• Decision Date: 12 April 2022
• Docket Number: SC 20462
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Gerjuan Rainer TYUS
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

342 Conn. 784

272 A.3d 132

STATE of Connecticut

v.Gerjuan Rainer TYUS

SC 20462

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 14, 2021

Officially released April 12, 2022

Pamela S. Nagy, supervisory assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

James A. Killen, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael L. Regan, former state's attorney, and Paul J. Narducci, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Charles D. Ray, Dana M. Delger, pro hac vice, M. Christopher Fabricant, pro hac vice, Don O. Burley, pro hac vice, Barbara E. Butterworth, pro hac vice, Jessica L. Hannah, pro hac vice, and Alexander E. Harding, pro hac vice, filed a brief for the Innocence Project, Inc., as amicus curiae.

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.

KAHN, J.

The defendant, Gerjuan Rainer Tyus, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed his conviction of murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a (a) and 53a-8. In this appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in joining the defendant's case with that of his codefendant, Darius Armadore, because the evidence in both cases was cross admissible, (2) his fourth amendment rights were violated under Carpenter v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 201 L. Ed. 2d 507 (2018), when the police obtained his cell site location information (CSLI) without a warrant supported by probable cause, and (3) the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the defendant's right to confrontation was not violated when the trial court allowed a state's firearms examiner to testify about the findings of a second firearms examiner, who was deceased and, thus, unavailable to testify at trial. The state disagrees with each of these claims and asserts, in the alternative, that any error was harmless. For the reasons that follow, we agree that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in joining the defendant's case with the codefendant's case and that the violations of the defendant's constitutional rights were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found from the evidence admitted at trial, and procedural history are relevant to our review of the defendant's claims. In December, 2006, the defendant was involved in an ongoing dispute with the victim, Todd Thomas, over jewelry that the victim's brother had given to the defendant. The victim demanded that the defendant return the jewelry, but the defendant refused to do so unless the victim paid him $10,000.

The victim's girlfriend, Devena Colebut, told the police that, after the victim had requested that the jewelry be returned, she and the victim were driving in the victim's white Lexus in New London. She recognized the defendant's vehicle, a blue Range Rover, which began to follow the Lexus. Soon after, she heard three or four gunshots, and the victim pushed her down. The victim made several turns in an attempt to evade the Range Rover.¹

On December 3, 2006, the victim drove by the defendant's apartment on Willetts Avenue in New London as a passenger in the white Lexus, which was registered to his wife. The victim fired several gunshots from a .38 caliber firearm, striking the defendant in the leg and the back. The defendant fired gunshots back at the victim with a nine millimeter firearm. The defendant's acquaintance, Rashard Johnson, who was present at the scene of that shooting, told the police that the defendant had a gun that he thought might be a nine millimeter firearm. Five nine millimeter cartridge casings were subsequently recovered from the scene of the shooting on Willetts Avenue. Those casings were found in front of 28 Willetts Avenue, the very same location the defendant later identified to the police on a hand drawn map as the place he had been standing. Several casings from a .38 caliber firearm were found farther down the street, in front of 24 Willetts Avenue from the location where the victim had fired. Later that same day, while the defendant was being treated for his wounds at the hospital, his close friend, Armadore, visited the defendant at the hospital and was overheard to say, "we're gonna get them niggas ...."²

On December 15, 2006, the defendant's then girlfriend, Takeisha Betts, went with the defendant to rent a silver Chevrolet Impala and listed herself and the defendant as authorized drivers of that vehicle.³ The defendant and Armadore drove this rental vehicle to Boston, Massachusetts, at approximately 7 p.m. on December 22, 2006. While in Boston, the defendant and Armadore visited family and then picked up three women. One of the women subsequently refused to return to Connecticut with them, so the defendant and Armadore drove the other two women back to Connecticut in the silver Impala.

That evening, the victim was at Ernie's Café on Bank Street in New London. Kevin Thorne, an acquaintance of the defendant, testified that he was at Ernie's Café around that time and that, while he was there, he and the defendant communicated several times over their cell phones in order to arrange a marijuana sale. Shortly after midnight, the victim was shot in the head while he was standing outside of the front entrance of Ernie's Café smoking a cigarette. Thorne was outside of the bar and near the victim at the time of the shooting, and his phone records show that he was on the phone with the defendant around that time.

Witnesses observed a light-skinned African American male wearing a hooded sweatshirt fleeing the scene of the crime toward a municipal parking lot on Golden Street, where he entered the passenger side of a silver vehicle that was waiting there with its motor running. The vehicle immediately sped away. The victim was transferred to Lawrence + Memorial Hospital in New London and was pronounced dead upon arrival.

After the shooting, the defendant and Armadore arrived at Bella Notte, a nightclub in Norwich located approximately twelve and one-half miles north of Ernie's Café. The defendant elected to testify at trial and asserted that he and Armadore had driven straight from Boston to Bella Notte, and that they were there at the time the victim was shot. However, CSLI from two cell phones belonging to the defendant and one cell phone belonging to Armadore showed that they were in New London at the time of the victim's death. Further, a state's witness, Eduardo Guilbert, testified that he saw the defendant and a man matching Armadore's description entering Bella Notte sometime after Guilbert received a phone call informing him that the victim had been shot.⁴

A few hours later, the defendant dropped Armadore off at the apartment Armadore shared with his then girlfriend, Ritchae Ebrahimi. At trial, Ebrahimi testified that, after Armadore arrived at their home, they argued over his having been with other women that evening, and that he told her he had shot someone that night.

The police recovered one nine millimeter cartridge casing from the scene of the December 23, 2006 shooting at Ernie's Café. Ballistics evidence showed that this cartridge casing had been fired from the same firearm as all five of the nine millimeter cartridge casings that were recovered in front of 28 Willetts Avenue at the scene of the December 3, 2006 shooting.

The police also recovered the silver Impala that the defendant and his girlfriend rented, after it was returned to a rental car company in New London. The police then searched that vehicle for evidence related to the shooting. In addition to both the defendant's and Armadore's DNA, a red, bloodlike substance found on the interior of the Impala's front passenger door possessed genetic characteristics similar to that of the victim's. Angela Przech, an employee at the state forensics laboratory, noted that a bloodlike substance, although not blood, could be skin cells, saliva, sweat, or brain tissue.

Both the defendant and Armadore were interviewed by the police relating to their whereabouts during the night of and at the time of the shooting. During his initial interview with the police, the defendant stated that he and Armadore arrived at Bella Notte before 11:30 p.m. and that he did not see anyone he knew at Bella Notte. In a subsequent interview, however, the defendant said that he recognized a female friend at Bella Notte. Further, during an interview with the police shortly after the shooting, the defendant stated that he and Armadore had driven to Boston in a black car, but, after returning to Connecticut, they exchanged it for a rented silver car. In his March, 2008 interview with the police, the defendant stated that he and Armadore drove to Boston in a rental car. During his interview with the police in December, 2006, Armadore stated that he and the defendant traveled to Boston in a silver Impala to visit family. Both the defendant and Armadore testified at trial that they did not recall telling the police that they had ridden in a silver Impala that evening. Specifically, Armadore denied telling the police that he ever had ridden in a silver Impala with the defendant on the evening in question. The jury, however, was presented with forensic evidence showing that both Armadore and the defendant had been inside of the silver Impala rented by the defendant and his girlfriend. Throughout the investigation and even during their trial testimony, both the defendant and Armadore maintained that they were together at all times that evening and night.

On November 20, 2012, the defendant and Armadore were arrested and charged with murder in violation of § 53a-54a and conspiracy to commit murder in violation of § 53a-54a and General Statutes § 53a-48. The conspiracy charges were later dismissed as to both defendants on the ground that they were barred by the...