State v. Bember
Citations
- 349 Conn. 417
Syllabus
Convicted of felony murder, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court. On the night of the victim's murder, the defendant, armed with a .22 caliber revolver with black duct tape wrapped around its grip, was parked at a restaurant with H in H's car. When the defendant saw the victim walking nearby, he instructed H to follow the victim in the car. At some point, the defendant exited the car to pursue the victim on foot. After confronting the victim, the defendant decided to rob him, but, when the victim resisted, the defendant shot the victim five times. At trial, the state's case rested almost entirely on the testimony of H and B, who were both facing charges for their involvement in another homicide and had entered into cooperation agreements with the state. The defendant had allegedly confessed his involvement in the victim's murder to B, who was the defendant's close friend. Prior to trial, the defense moved to preclude the state from introducing the cooperation agreements during its direct examination of H and B. The trial court granted the motion but ruled that the prosecutor would be permitted to use leading questions to flesh out the terms of the agreements. The defense also moved for a pretrial hearing regarding the reliability of H's and B's proposed trial testimony pursuant to the statute (§ 54-86p) governing the reliability and admissibility of jailhouse informant testi- mony. Following a hearing, at which H and B testified, the trial court, over defense counsel's objection, granted the state's motion to open the hearing for the purpose of introducing five exhibits relating to evidence that the parties had referenced during their arguments at the hearing. Thereafter, the trial court found that H's and B's proposed trial testimony was sufficiently reliable to be admitted at trial. In reaching its decision, the tri
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- § 54-86p ‘‘does not provide that any one of the enumerated factors is dispositive or that any are mandatory considerations’’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1967-12-18· cited 13,304×
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 9,088×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-07-28· cited 498×
- State v. WarholicSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-05-30· cited 150×
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-10-28· cited 147×
- State v. HamptonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-09-15· cited 98×
- State v. AllenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-11-24· cited 57×
- Washington v. MeachumSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-08-06· cited 52×
- State v. RussoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-02-19· cited 39×
- State v. RaynorSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-12-04· cited 27×
- United States v. RoundtreeEighth Circuit· 2008-07-24· cited 25×
- Bain v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2018-04-23· cited 25×
- Yu Kikumura v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1999-03-22· cited 22×
- State v. OrtizSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-06-14· cited 22×
- State v. WeatherspoonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-07-30· cited 20×
- State v. GentileConnecticut Appellate Court· 2003-04-01· cited 18×
- State v. HoughtalingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2017-07-25· cited 16×
- State v. Christopher S.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-03-10· cited 16×
- United States v. Russell Edward EgglestonEighth Circuit· 1999-01-13· cited 13×
- State v. JacquesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-07-16· cited 12×
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.