State v. McLaurin
Citations
- 352 Conn. 500
Syllabus
The defendant appealed, on the granting of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which had affirmed his conviction of numerous crimes, including first degree robbery, in connection with his role in an armed robbery of a restaurant. The perpetrators of the robbery had fled the restaurant, but the police apprehended the defendant shortly thereafter and detained him in a nearby parking lot. An officer then transported B, a restaurant employee who had witnessed the robbery, to the parking lot, where she identified the defendant as one of the perpetrators. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress B's identification of the defendant, reasoning that the one-on-one showup identification procedure the police used to obtain the identification was not unnecessarily suggestive and that, even if it was, B's identification was nevertheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances. On appeal to this court, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the Appellate Court, in upholding the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress, incorrectly had concluded that the showup procedure the police used to obtain the identification was not unnecessarily suggestive. Held: Even if this court assumed that the challenged showup procedure was unnecessarily suggestive, the trial court correctly concluded that B's identifi- This case originally was argued before a panel of this court consisting of former Chief Justice Robinson and Justices McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Ecker, Alexander and Dannehy. Thereafter, former Chief Justice Robinson and Justice Alexander were removed from the panel, and the case was reargued before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Mullins, Justices McDon- ald, D'Auria, Ecker and Dannehy, and Judges Clark and Westbrook. 352 Conn. 500 JULY, 2025 501 State v. McLaurin cation of the defendant was reliable under all of the relevant circumstances, and, accordingly, the Appellate Court properly upheld the trial court's de
Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Dannehy; Clark; Westbrook
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court· 1970-05-18· cited 11,712×
- Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court· 1972-12-06· cited 7,056×
- Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1968-03-18· cited 6,700×
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court· 1989-04-17· cited 6,602×
- Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court· 1967-06-12· cited 6,066×
- Manson v. BrathwaiteSupreme Court· 1977-06-16· cited 5,119×
- State v. HendersonSupreme Court of New Jersey· 2011-08-24· cited 487×
- United States v. Manuel Concepcion, Roberto Aponte, and Nelson FriasSecond Circuit· 1993-03-25· cited 425×
- State v. WhelanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-05· cited 393×
- California v. TybergSupreme Court· 1986-12-01· cited 383×
- People v. AdamsNew York Court of Appeals· 1981-06-16· cited 381×
- State v. LedbetterSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-09-27· cited 145×
- State v. Lawson/JamesOregon Supreme Court· 2012-11-29· cited 143×
- United States v. Miguel Bautista and Tony Rodriguez Perez, Luis R. Minier-ContrerasSecond Circuit· 1994-05-06· cited 140×
- State v. MitchellSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1987-06-23· cited 110×
- Commonwealth v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1995-06-09· cited 88×
- Adolf v. Wichita Falls General HospitalSupreme Court· 1987-11-02· cited 85×
- State v. WootenSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-09-07· cited 78×
- Brisco v. ErcoleSecond Circuit· 2009-05-13· cited 72×
- State v. MarquezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-04-14· cited 66×
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.