Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

37 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.