Skip to main content
· 6/7/2022

State v. Alexande r

Citations

  • 343 Conn. 495

Syllabus

Convicted of felony murder, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and carrying a pistol without a permit in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court. Shortly after the shooting, the police brought the defendant to the police station, where he was advised of and waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436). During the interrogation of the defendant, he denied any involvement in the robbery or the murder of the victim but admitted that he was present at the scene and that he briefly had held a gun belonging to another individual, J, shortly before the shooting. The defendant elected to be tried on the felony murder charge by a three judge panel and by the presiding judge on the remaining counts. Prior to trial, defense counsel moved to suppress the video recording of the defendant's inter- rogation, but, because the court found the portion of the recording in which the defendant purportedly requested an attorney to be unintelligi- ble, it denied the motion on the ground that the defendant had not made an unambiguous request for counsel. The panel ultimately found the defendant guilty of felony murder, and the presiding judge found the defendant guilty of the remaining charges. Before the defendant was sentenced, however, this court issued its decision in State v. Purcell (331 Conn. 318), which held, as a matter of state constitutional law, that, if a suspect makes an equivocal statement that arguably could be construed as a request for counsel, interrogation must cease except for narrow questions designed to clarify the suspect's desire for counsel. The defendant then filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of Purcell. After listening to the recording of the interrogation again, the trial court concluded that the defendant's remark ''you got me . . . stop talking right now, I'm trying to get a lawyer'' constituted an equivocal statement that arguab

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Keller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.