Skip to main content

State v. Bryan

Citations

  • 193 Conn. App. 285

Syllabus

Convicted of the crimes of murder and conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the shooting death of the victim, who was pregnant with his child, the defendant appealed. The defendant had plotted with a friend, H, to kill the victim after she refused the defendant's requests to have an abortion. The victim and the defendant had driven to a location where the defendant purportedly intended to collect money from someone. H, who had driven the defendant's car to the area and parked nearby, thereafter approached the victim's parked car, in which she and the defendant were sitting, and fatally shot the victim. The defendant later told a police detective, E, that an unknown individual had attempted to rob them and shot the victim as she tried to drive away. H thereafter told a friend, M, that he had killed the victim at the defendant's behest, after which H and M robbed a store using the gun that H had used to shoot the victim, which they then hid in a park. The defendant subsequently told E that H and M had robbed the store, after which M turned himself in to the police and helped them retrieve the gun. At trial, after H invoked his privilege against self-incrimination and declined to testify, M testified about the gun and what H had told him concerning the victim's murder. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence H's statements to M as dual inculpatory statements pursuant to the applicable provision (§ 8-6 [4]) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence. Held: 1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting H's statements to M about the victim's murder as dual inculpatory statements under § 8-6 (4), as H's statements were sufficiently trustworthy and against his penal interest: a. The defendant's claim that H's statements to M were inadmissible as dual inculpatory statements because they sought to shift the blame for the victim's murder to the defendant was unavailing, as the statements were squarel

Judges: Keller; Prescott; Moll

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.