Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited 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.

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.