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 CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. GriffinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2021-07-22· cited 22×
- State v. FloresSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-09-20· cited 9×
- State v. GraySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-03-29· cited 6×
- State v. HintonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-06-24· cited 6×
- State v. BemberSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-06-25· cited 4×
- State v. FranquiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2026-04-21
Cites
62 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 58,288×
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court· 1973-05-29· cited 11,783×
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court· 1991-05-20· cited 6,060×
- Colorado v. ConnellySupreme Court· 1986-12-10· cited 4,016×
- Moran v. BurbineSupreme Court· 1986-03-10· cited 3,339×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- City of Boerne v. FloresSupreme Court· 1997-06-25· cited 1,926×
- Fare v. Michael C.Supreme Court· 1979-10-01· cited 1,729×
- Berghuis v. ThompkinsSupreme Court· 2010-06-01· cited 1,592×
- Rogers v. RichmondSupreme Court· 1961-03-20· cited 1,412×
- Colorado v. SpringSupreme Court· 1987-01-27· cited 1,070×
- Lynumn v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1963-03-25· cited 792×
- Withrow v. WilliamsSupreme Court· 1993-06-28· cited 655×
- Duckworth v. EaganSupreme Court· 1989-06-26· cited 652×
- State v. WhelanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-05· cited 393×
- California v. TybergSupreme Court· 1986-12-01· cited 383×
- State v. Terrell Hubbard (073539)Supreme Court of New Jersey· 2015-06-24· cited 353×
- State v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-06-03· cited 248×
- State v. KitchensSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-01-05· cited 242×
- Powell v. NevadaSupreme Court· 1994-03-30· cited 190×
Other cases named State v. Christopher S.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case 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.