State v. Flores
Citations
- 344 Conn. 713
Syllabus
Convicted of home invasion, burglary in the first degree, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit home invasion, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant and his friend, B, had agreed to steal drugs and money from the home of the defendant's drug dealer, D. After ingesting cocaine and acquiring various tools and supplies from B's workplace, the defendant and B drove to D's home, which they entered through the basement. The defendant and B were wearing facemasks and armed with box cutters, and B also held a machete. After they were confronted by D and other occupants of D's home, the defendant and B fled and were later apprehended by the police. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress a written statement he made after being brought to the police station, claiming that it was inadmissible pursuant to the statute (§ 54-1o) governing the admissibility of statements made in the course of an unrecorded custodial interroga- tion at a place of detention. Following a hearing, at which the defendant and several police officers testified, the court denied the motion to suppress. The court concluded that, although the electronic recording of the encounter in which the defendant had made his statement was not preserved, the state had overcome the statute's presumption of 9 This process might function similar to that set out in State v. Polanco, 308 Conn. 242, 260–63, 61 A.3d 1084 (2013), which requires that, when a defendant is found guilty of greater and lesser included offenses in violation of the double jeopardy clause, the trial court must vacate the verdict on the lesser included offense. 714 SEPTEMBER, 2022 344 Conn. 713 State v. Flores inadmissibility of the defendant's written statement under § 54-1o (h) because the failure to preserve the electronic recording was not in bad faith and because the state had established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant's statement was voluntary and reliable. At trial
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘the state must take care in drafting its cooperation agreements, and trial courts must carefully examine their language before admitting them fully into evidence’’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
57 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×
- Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court· 1982-02-22· cited 9,761×
- State v. Terrell Hubbard (073539)Supreme Court of New Jersey· 2015-06-24· cited 353×
- UNITED STATES of America v. Darus H. ZEHRBACH, Appellant in No. 93-7477. Alex A. Mervis, Appellant in No. 93-7493Third Circuit· 1995-04-17· cited 279×
- United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/ (99-1003) v. Jack William Tocco, (98-2312/2426)/ Cross-AppelleeSixth Circuit· 2000-01-05· cited 270×
- United States v. Neal T. Roberts and James Albert RobisonNinth Circuit· 1980-05-07· cited 244×
- United States v. WinterFirst Circuit· 1981-10-30· cited 194×
- United States v. Millard BowieTenth Circuit· 1990-01-08· cited 190×
- United States v. Carlos Bienuenido Cruz, Roberto Cruz, Stephen Cruz, Teresa Irwin, Phillip Warren Jones, Dave Thomas, and Arthur Liggins StrongEleventh Circuit· 1986-12-29· cited 175×
- Commonwealth v. DiGiambattistaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2004-08-16· cited 167×
- Goldenberg v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1983-02-28· cited 144×
- United States v. KnowlesEleventh Circuit· 1995-10-17· cited 136×
- State v. MoralesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-04-25· cited 129×
- Miller v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-08-26· cited 128×
- Commonwealth v. CiampaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1989-12-14· cited 124×
- United States v. Flavio Diaz SantanaEighth Circuit· 1998-07-24· cited 123×
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1950-12-11· cited 105×
- United States v. Albert Weston, United States of America v. Paul R. TaylorFirst Circuit· 1992-03-25· cited 102×
- State v. CookSupreme Court of New Jersey· 2004-05-10· cited 94×
- United States v. Bernard Douglas HendersonFourth Circuit· 1984-01-23· cited 93×
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.