· 3/10/2021

State v. Christopher S.

Citations

  • 338 Conn. 255

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute (§ 54-1o (b)), a ''written . . . statement of a person under investigation for or accused of'' certain crimes ''made as a result of a custodial interrogation at a place of detention shall be presumed to be inadmissible as evidence against the person in any criminal pro- ceeding unless . . . [a]n electronic recording is made of the custodial interrogation . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 54-1o (h)), the presumption of inadmissibility under § 54-1o (b) may be overcome when the state proves, by a prepon- derance of the evidence, that ''the statement was voluntarily given and is reliable, based on the totality of the circumstances.'' Convicted of the crimes of strangulation in the second degree and assault in the third degree, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court. The defendant and the victim had a physical altercation in the early morning, and the police arrested the defendant. The arresting officer, C, read the defendant his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436), both at the time he was arrested and later that morning at the police station. Thereafter, less than six hours after the defendant's second Miranda warning, the defendant was questioned by a detective, M, but the interro- gation was not video recorded. M did not readvise the defendant of his Miranda rights but did confirm with the defendant that he had been previously advised of his rights and that he was willing to speak with M. M then wrote out a narrative of the incident, and the defendant, after making several changes, signed and initialed the statement. Before trial, the state filed a motion seeking permission to introduce the defendant's In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the victim of family violence, we decline to identify the victim or others through whom the victim's identity may be ascertained. See General Statutes § 54-86e. 256 SEPTEMBER, 2021 338 Conn. 255 State v. Christopher S. signed statement into evidence. Althou

Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Vertefeuille

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.