State v. Graham
Citations
- 344 Conn. 825
Syllabus
Convicted of felony murder, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and carrying a pistol without a permit, the defendant appealed. The defendant and two friends, M and C, encountered the victim on a walking path and decided to rob him. C attempted to shoot the victim, but his gun jammed, and the defendant used his own gun to fatally shoot the victim. The three men took money and other belongings from the victim, 826 OCTOBER, 2022 344 Conn. 825 State v. Graham and fled the scene. Approximately one week later, the defendant recounted the details of the incident to his friend, B. Around the same time, M described the incident to S, a friend, while they were together in M's backyard. At trial, B and S both testified, pursuant to cooperation agreements they each had with the state, regarding the conversations that they had with the defendant and M, respectively. Defense counsel objected when the state attempted to question S regarding the statement M had made to him, but the trial court determined that M's statement to S was admissible under the relevant provision (§ 8-6 (4)) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence embracing the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest. In making that determination, the court found that M was unavailable to testify, M's statement to S was sufficiently trustworthy, and the statement was against M's penal interest insofar as it implicated M in a plan to rob the victim, even if the statement also was, to some extent, self-serving. The defendant testified in his own defense, claiming that an unknown individual had shot the victim. During closing argument, the prosecutor suggested that the jury should discredit the defendant's testimony because he had tailored it to reflect the evidence presented by the other witnesses who had testified before the defendant took the stand. On the defendant's appeal, held: 1. The trial court properly admitted M's statement to S, in which M inculpated the defendant in the shooting: a. The
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
41 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2004-03-08· cited 14,756×
- Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court· 1965-04-05· cited 4,761×
- Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2006-06-19· cited 4,179×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- Michigan v. BryantSupreme Court· 2011-02-28· cited 1,277×
- Lilly v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1999-06-14· cited 1,183×
- Williamson v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1994-06-27· cited 931×
- Martinez v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado· 2010-11-30· cited 767×
- Ohio v. ClarkSupreme Court· 2015-06-18· cited 539×
- State v. RobertsWashington Supreme Court· 2000-12-14· cited 341×
- Portuondo v. AgardSupreme Court· 2000-03-06· cited 329×
- Commonwealth v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2012-08-21· cited 299×
- United States v. Joseph EbronFifth Circuit· 2012-05-30· cited 223×
- State v. SaucierSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-07-17· cited 151×
- State v. DanielsSupreme Court of New Jersey· 2004-12-14· cited 139×
- State v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-08-15· cited 126×
- State v. SchiappaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-03-23· cited 122×
- State v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-10-17· cited 121×
- State v. PierreSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-01-31· cited 116×
- People v. PattersonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1989-09-07· cited 114×
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.