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
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- conducting ‘‘our harmless error analysis . . . on the basis of our independent review of the record’’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. SaylesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-03-26· cited 10×
- State v. HaynesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-07-01· cited 10×
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-08-12· cited 3×
- State v. KingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-08-08· cited 1×
- State v. MahargSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-07-08
Cites
18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 58,288×
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1967-03-27· cited 23,069×
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court· 1991-05-20· cited 6,060×
- Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1994-06-24· cited 2,777×
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-11-25· cited 99×
- Robert Arthur Hart v. Attorney General of the State of Florida, Secretary for the Department of CorrectionsEleventh Circuit· 2003-03-05· cited 92×
- State v. LopezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-11-09· cited 48×
- State v. Fernando V.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-03-26· cited 38×
- State v. PersonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-03-19· cited 38×
- State v. CulbreathSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-08-18· cited 36×
- State v. PurcellSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-03-29· cited 31×
- United States v. Ralph MillerSeventh Circuit· 1986-08-28· cited 25×
- United States v. LeeSeventh Circuit· 2010-08-20· cited 17×
- State v. ArmadoreSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-03-23· cited 15×
- State v. AyalaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-09-24· cited 13×
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-06-19· cited 12×
- State v. GraySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-03-29· cited 6×
- Crist, Attorney General of Florida v. HartSupreme Court· 2003-12-01· cited 4×
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.