State v. Hamilton
Citations
- 352 Conn. 317
Syllabus
Convicted of murder and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court had improperly admitted into evidence two recorded police interviews of C, the state's key witness, as prior inconsistent statements under State v. Whelan (200 Conn. 743) and the corresponding provision (§ 8-5 (1)) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence on the ground that C's trial testimony was not inconsistent with the statements he had made during those interviews. Held: The trial court abused its discretion in admitting C's two recorded police interviews under Whelan and § 8-5 (1) of the Code of Evidence because, although C was an uncooperative witness, the state failed to sufficiently demonstrate that C refused to testify or that his trial testimony was otherwise inconsistent with the statements he had made during the interviews. Although a witness' denial of recollection can constitute an inconsistency, the record must be clear regarding what the witness does not recall in order for a court to adequately determine whether an inconsistency between trial This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Mullins and Justices McDonald, D'Auria, Ecker, Dannehy and Bright. Although Justice McDonald was not present at oral argument, he has read the briefs and appendices and listened to a recording of oral argument prior to participating in this decision. 318 JULY, 2025 352 Conn. 317 State v. Hamilton testimony and a prior statement exists, and, in the present case, C testified ambiguously about his lack of recollection, and the prosecutor failed to probe C as to what he did and did not recall and did not attempt to refresh C's recollection to lay a proper foundation to demonstrate that C's testimony was inconsistent with his statements to the police. Moreover, even if a refusal to testify about a particular subject could consti- tute an inconsistency wi
Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Dannehy; Bright
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. WhelanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-05· cited 393×
- California v. TybergSupreme Court· 1986-12-01· cited 383×
- People v. HomickCalifornia Supreme Court· 2012-12-03· cited 323×
- State v. VitaleSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-09-10· cited 160×
- State v. SaucierSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-07-17· cited 151×
- United States v. IglesiasThird Circuit· 2008-07-25· cited 149×
- State v. PierreSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-01-31· cited 116×
- United States v. Joseph Earvin Lewis and Melvin Ronnell WadeFifth Circuit· 1990-05-23· cited 102×
- Stevenson v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia· 1977-10-07· cited 75×
- State v. KingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-07-27· cited 69×
- State v. WargoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-12-19· cited 69×
- State v. AvisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-12-06· cited 60×
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-08-24· cited 57×
- State v. SatchwellSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1998-04-28· cited 57×
- State v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-04-29· cited 55×
- State v. GrenierSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-09-04· cited 52×
- State v. HolleySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-01-12· cited 51×
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-08-19· cited 50×
- State v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-05-01· cited 50×
- State v. PappasSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-07-24· cited 50×
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.