· 12/9/2025

State v. Lazaro C.-D.

Citations

  • 353 Conn. 692

Syllabus

Convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child in connection with the sexual abuse of the five year old victim, the defendant appealed to this court. He claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress certain statements that he had made to two detectives during an interview at the police station, contending that he was in custody at the time and, therefore, that the police were required to advise him of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436). Held: In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the victims of sexual abuse and the crime of risk of injury to a child, we decline to identify the victim or others through whom the victim's identity may be ascertained. See General Statutes § 54-86e. Moreover, in accordance with federal law; see 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (d) (3) (2024), we decline to identify any person protected or sought to be protected under a protection order, protective order, or a restraining order that was issued or applied for, or others through whom that person's identity may be ascertained. 353 Conn. 692 DECEMBER, 2025 693 State v. Lazaro C.-D. The trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the statements he had made during the interview, that court having correctly determined that the defendant was not in custody for purposes of Miranda. Any coercive elements of the station house interview were outweighed by other factors that led this court to conclude that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would not have believed that he was restrained to the degree associated with a formal arrest. Specifically, the tone and tenor of the interrogation was cordial and non- threatening, the interrogation was not prolonged or hostile, the detectives did not make accusations, confront the defendant with incriminating evi- dence, or subject him to trickery or tactics aimed at inducing a confession, the detectives asked open-ended and non

Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Dannehy; Bright

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.