State v. Garrison
Citations
- 213 Conn. App. 786
Syllabus
The defendant, who had been convicted, after a trial to the court, of the crime of assault in the first degree, appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court had improperly denied his motion to suppress certain statements he made to police officers while he was in a hospital examin- ing room where he was attached to an intravenous line. The defendant claimed that the statements were inadmissible because they were the product of custodial interrogation, and the police had not advised him of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436). The state disagreed and claimed that, even if the police were required to advise the defendant of his rights pursuant to Miranda, the admission of his statements at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The defen- dant had visited P and another man at their apartment, where the men consumed beer and whiskey and socialized. The men became highly intoxicated. An argument ensued, and P punched the defendant in the face. The defendant thereafter attacked P from behind and stabbed him six times with a knife. The defendant then walked to a nearby hospital. He was brought to the examining room, where he remained that evening and into the early morning for about four and one-half hours. The attending physician did not permit him to be discharged until he regained sobriety. At various times, five different police officers conducted multi- ple rounds of questioning of the defendant in his hospital room, during which he made inculpatory statements. One of the officers also tran- scribed the defendant's version of the events at issue, placed him under oath, instructed him to sign the written statement and then left the hospital room. The officer returned later and informed the defendant that he was free to leave the hospital but only if the medical staff allowed him to do so. None of the officers ever advised the defendant of his rights pursuant to Miranda or told him that he was under arrest or that he could terminate
Judges: Prescott; Suarez; Bishop
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. DabateSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-03-11· cited 15×
- State v. BrandonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-12-30· cited 9×
- State v. William G.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2025-04-29· cited 1×
- State v. BrandonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-01-24
- State v. GarrisonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-07-26
- State v. GarrisonConnecticut Appellate Court· 2025-02-25
Cites
34 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×
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
- Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1978-06-21· cited 3,849×
- Oregon v. KennedySupreme Court· 1982-05-24· cited 2,097×
- State v. ColtonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-08-08· cited 130×
- Vance v. Allen v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1968-01-25· cited 116×
- State v. PinderSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-08-24· cited 103×
- Munoz v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1996-02-20· cited 94×
- State v. KirbySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-10-17· cited 92×
- Grady v. Town of SomersSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-12-22· cited 82×
- State v. LedbetterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-04-15· cited 61×
- State v. MerrittConnecticut Appellate Court· 1994-07-29· cited 52×
- Commonwealth v. D'NICUOLASupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1972-06-28· cited 49×
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-04-14· cited 49×
- State v. MullinsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-08-12· cited 47×
- State v. HoeplingerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-02-16· cited 44×
- State v. DesLaurierSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-08-02· cited 43×
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-11-03· cited 41×
- State v. JacksonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-04-17· cited 40×
- State v. GonzalezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-09-06· cited 30×
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.