STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. RICHARD EVANS, SC 21006

Judicial District of Fairfield

Criminal; Whether Trial Court Erred in Admitting Witness' Identification of Defendant From Still Image Taken From Surveillance Video Footage; Whether Trial Court Erred in Failing to Suppress Defendant's Cell Site Location Information Obtained From His Cell Phone Service Provider Because Search Warrant Was Not Supported by Probable Cause. On July 2, 2017, at approximately 4:20 a.m., the victim, Reginald May, was shot and killed outside his apartment on Alice Street in Bridgeport. The defendant and the victim had been involved in a fight a few days before the shooting. The police obtained surveillance video from the morning of the murder, which showed a man parking an Escalade, which was similar in appearance to the defendant's Escalade, on Alice Street at 4:17 a.m. The man then exited the vehicle and walked towards the victim's apartment building, and he subsequently returned to the car at approximately 4:21 a.m. The police also obtained from the defendant's cell phone service provider his cell phone records, including the cell site location information (CSLI), pursuant to a search warrant. The CSLI showed that the defendant's cell phone traveled in a southerly direction from his house on Dogwood Drive in Bridgeport toward the crime scene approximately thirty or forty minutes before the crime, and it traveled in a northerly direction back toward the defendant's house shortly after the crime. The CSLI also connected the defendant's cell phone to a cell tower near the New Haven/Hamden border the following day, where the police subsequently discovered the murder weapon at the base of a waterfall. The defendant was subsequently charged with the victim's murder. At trial, the defendant moved to preclude the testimony of John May (May), the victim's brother, identifying him as the person in a still image taken from surveillance video footage. After considering the factors set forth in State v. Gore, 342 Conn. 129 (2022), the trial court denied the defendant's motion, stating that May was better suited to make a reliable identification from the still image than was the jury. Thereafter, May identified the person depicted in the still image as the defendant. Next, the defendant moved to suppress the CSLI evidence, arguing that the facts alleged in the warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause. Specifically, he argued that because the warrant affidavit did not contain any allegation that "the perpetrator used his phone before, during or after the crime," the affidavit failed to establish any "nexus" between the perpetrator's cell phone and the criminal activity. The trial court denied the motion to suppress in part, ruling that because (1) the warrant affidavit established probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the murder and (2) the issuing magistrate could have reasonably inferred that the perpetrator likely had a cell phone with him before, during and after the offense, probable cause existed to obtain the defendant's cell phone records containing the CSLI. The court, however, applied the severance doctrine and limited the state to offering CSLI evidence from June 29, 2017 to July 5, 2017. After the trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of murder. The defendant appeals from his conviction directly to the Supreme Court under General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted May's identification of him from a still image taken from surveillance video footage. In support of his claim, he argues that May had seen him in person only once, and therefore, he lacked the requisite familiarity under Gore for his identification to be admissible. In addition, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in concluding that the search warrant for his CSLI was supported by probable cause. Relatedly, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in severing the search warrant to permit admission of CSLI evidence about the day after the murder.