Skip to main content

State v. Cooper

Citations

  • 353 Conn. 510

Syllabus

Convicted of murder in connection with the shooting death of the victim inside the stairwell of a housing complex, the defendant appealed to this court. The police had identified the defendant from video surveillance foot- age, which depicted the defendant leading the victim into a building through a basement door and then exiting the building alone through the front entrance minutes later. The police subsequently obtained a warrant to search the home of the defendant, who was seventeen years old at the time and living with G, his great-grandmother and legal guardian. During the search, 353 Conn. 510 SEPTEMBER, 2025 511 State v. Cooper officers seized a pistol and bullets from the defendant's bedroom. While the police were at the defendant's residence, they read the defendant his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436), and both the defendant and G signed a card acknowledging that the defendant had been advised of his rights and that he had agreed to speak with the police. Nineteen minutes into the police interview, which occurred in G's presence, the defendant indicated that he did not wish to answer any more questions, but the inter- view nevertheless continued. The trial court denied the defendant's request to suppress any statements made during the first nineteen minutes of the interview, concluding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the state demonstrated that the defendant had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelli- gently waived his Miranda rights. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the state had failed to demonstrate a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. Held: The trial court correctly concluded that, under the totality of the circum- stances, the state demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The record supported the trial court's factual determinations that, at the time of the interview, the defendant was nearl

Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Dannehy; Bright

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

49 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.