State v. Haynes
Citations
- 352 Conn. 236
Syllabus
Convicted of murder in connection with the stabbing death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court. The trial court had precluded the state from using, in its case-in-chief, a statement given by the defendant to the police on the ground that, although the defendant had given the statement voluntarily, it had been obtained in violation of his right to counsel under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436) and Edwards v. Arizona (451 U.S. 477). The court nevertheless permitted the state to use the statement to impeach the defendant's trial testimony in accordance with State v. Reid (193 Conn. 646), in which this court, relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Harris v. New York (401 U.S. 222), held that the Connecticut constitution permits the state to impeach a criminal defendant's trial testi- mony with a voluntary statement that was obtained in violation of Miranda. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that this court should overrule Reid and conclude that article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution precluded the state from using his statement to impeach his trial testi- mony. Held: Guided by the relevant factors set forth in State v. Geisler (222 Conn. 672) for construing the Connecticut constitution, as well as stare decisis considerations, this court declined the defendant's request to overrule Reid and concluded that the state's use of the defendant's statement for impeach- ment purposes did not violate the state constitution. The defendant did not provide inescapable reasons that would compel this court to overrule Reid, insofar as the overwhelming weight of authority from other states aligned with Connecticut's existing view of the Harris impeachment exception, the defendant failed to establish that the rights of criminal defendants are not adequately protected by the policy articulated in Harris and Reid, which balances the valuable aid that the impeachment process affords the jury in assessing a defendant's credibility w
Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. JacquesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-08-26· cited 3×
- State v. McFarlandSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-09-02· cited 1×
- State v. HendersonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-09-23· cited 1×
- State v. MahargSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-07-08
- State v. FranquiSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2026-04-21
Cites
114 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×
- United States v. LeonSupreme Court· 1984-09-18· cited 9,230×
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 9,088×
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court· 1963-03-18· cited 8,419×
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1981-06-22· cited 6,931×
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court· 1964-06-15· cited 3,675×
- Moran v. BurbineSupreme Court· 1986-03-10· cited 3,339×
- Nix v. WilliamsSupreme Court· 1984-06-11· cited 3,080×
- Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1971-02-24· cited 2,903×
- Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1994-06-24· cited 2,777×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- Rock v. ArkansasSupreme Court· 1987-06-22· cited 2,329×
- Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1928-06-04· cited 2,291×
- Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborSupreme Court· 1964-06-15· cited 1,503×
- Michigan v. TuckerSupreme Court· 1974-06-10· cited 1,437×
- Murray v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1988-06-27· cited 1,424×
- Oregon v. HassSupreme Court· 1975-03-19· cited 1,364×
- Grunewald v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1957-05-27· cited 1,102×
- Walder v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1954-02-01· cited 1,024×
- Chavez v. MartinezSupreme Court· 2003-05-27· cited 899×
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.