State v. Culbreath
Citations
- 340 Conn. 167
Syllabus
In State v. Purcell (331 Conn. 318), this court determined, as a matter of state constitutional law, that, if a suspect makes an equivocal statement that arguably could be construed as a request for counsel, interrogation must cease except for narrow questions designed to clarify the equivocal statement and the suspect's desire for counsel, or, alternatively, the officers conducting the interrogation may inform the suspect that they understand the suspect's statement to mean that he does not wish to speak with them without counsel and that they will terminate the interrogation, and, in either case, if the suspect thereafter clearly and unequivocally expresses a desire to continue without counsel present, the interrogation may resume. Convicted of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, criminal posses- sion of a firearm, and carrying a pistol without a permit, among other crimes, the defendant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that certain state- ments he made during a custodial interrogation were improperly admit- ted into evidence because they were elicited by a detective, R, after he invoked his right to counsel, in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights. In response to a tip that that defendant was in possession of a firearm that had been used in a homicide earlier in the evening, the police stopped a vehicle in which the defendant and his girlfriend, T, were passengers. The driver consented to a search of the vehicle, and the police found a revolver in a box underneath the seat of the defendant, who was prohibited from possessing firearms or con- tacting T pursuant to a protective order. The police arrested the defen- dant and transported him to the police station, where R advised him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436). Before signing a written waiver form, the defendant asked R why the form stated ''that I'm wavering . . . how I don't want the presence of an attorney or anything . . . .'' R explained that signing the
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- error was not harmless when prosecutor repeatedly drew jury’s attention to defendant’s inadmissible state- ments, arguing that they reflected his guilt
- ‘‘defense counsel may waive certain tactical trial rights that are not personal to the defendant . . . as part of trial strategy’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
- ‘‘[when] credibility is an issue and, thus, the jury’s assessment of who is telling the truth is critical, an error affecting the jury’s ability to assess a [witness’] credibility is not harmless error’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-10-25· cited 24×
- State v. SaylesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-03-26· cited 10×
- State v. HaynesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-07-01· cited 10×
- State v. Morel-VargasSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-05-10· cited 8×
- State v. HintonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-06-24· cited 6×
- State v. Alexande rSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-06-07· cited 5×
- State v. IversonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-07-15· cited 4×
- State v. Delacruz-GomezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-07-25· cited 2×
- State v. James A.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-12-19· cited 1×
- MattosSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-09-12· cited 1×
- State v. OutlawSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-08-06· cited 1×
- State v. WadeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-04-22
Cites
37 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×
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2004-03-08· cited 14,756×
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1981-06-22· cited 6,931×
- Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1994-06-24· cited 2,777×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- Rehaif v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2019-06-21· cited 1,955×
- Griffin v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1991-12-03· cited 1,353×
- Oregon v. BradshawSupreme Court· 1983-06-23· cited 1,351×
- McCoy v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 2018-05-14· cited 738×
- Tapia v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2011-06-16· cited 716×
- State v. KitchensSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-01-05· cited 242×
- State v. DeJesusSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-08-19· cited 196×
- United States v. TittiesTenth Circuit· 2017-03-24· cited 125×
- State v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-10-17· cited 121×
- State v. SawyerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-08-08· cited 94×
- State v. FabricatoreSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-02-27· cited 91×
- Mozell v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-04-14· cited 90×
- People v. Sauceda-ContrerasCalifornia Supreme Court· 2012-08-13· cited 77×
- United States v. Malik NasirThird Circuit· 2020-12-01· cited 77×
- Gonzales v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2008-12-08· cited 76×
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.