State v. Patel
Citations
- 342 Conn. 445
Syllabus
Convicted of various crimes, including murder, in connection with a home invasion, the defendant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had improperly admitted into evidence a dual inculpatory statement made by a codefendant, C, to E, a fellow prison inmate. The defendant's cousin, N, had included the defendant and C in N's plan to rob the victim, with whom N had previously engaged in drug transactions. N drove the defendant and C to the area of the victim's home, which the defendant and C eventually entered. After encountering the victim, C shot and killed him. While in custody on an unrelated charge, C recounted the events of the home invasion, including the defendant's role, to E, who surreptitiously recorded the conversation. At trial, the recording of C's conversation with E was admitted as a statement against penal interest under the applicable provision (§ 8-6 (4)) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence. In addition, defense counsel, in order to advance a theory of third-party culpability, sought to have the defendant's sister, M, testify about a purported confession that P, N's cousin, made to M. The trial court excluded M's testimony regarding P's confession on the ground that it was not sufficiently trustworthy. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held: 1. The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in admitting into evidence C's dual inculpatory statement to E: a. The admission of C's statement did not violate the defendant's right to confrontation under the United States constitution: in Crawford v. United States (541 U.S. 36), the United States Supreme Court indicated that statements of a defendant's coconspirator to a fellow inmate incul- pating the defendant are nontestimonial, and, subsequently, federal and state courts have consistently rejected claims that the admission of statements between inm
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- ‘‘[a]d- mission of a hearsay statement pursuant to § 8-6 (4) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence is subject to a binary inquiry: (1) whether [the] statement . . . was against [the declarant’s] penal interest and, if so, (2
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
61 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×
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2004-03-08· cited 14,756×
- Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1968-06-17· cited 8,792×
- Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court· 1974-02-27· cited 5,953×
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court· 1980-06-25· cited 5,425×
- Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court· 1965-04-05· cited 4,761×
- Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2006-06-19· cited 4,179×
- Massiah v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1964-05-18· cited 3,189×
- Bourjaily v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1987-06-23· cited 2,639×
- Idaho v. WrightSupreme Court· 1990-06-27· cited 2,081×
- Dutton v. EvansSupreme Court· 1970-12-15· cited 1,926×
- Michigan v. BryantSupreme Court· 2011-02-28· cited 1,277×
- Lilly v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1999-06-14· cited 1,183×
- Williams v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 2012-06-18· cited 994×
- Illinois v. PerkinsSupreme Court· 1990-06-04· cited 906×
- United States v. InadiSupreme Court· 1986-03-10· cited 682×
- Ohio v. ClarkSupreme Court· 2015-06-18· cited 539×
- State v. GeislerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-06-18· cited 496×
- People v. JohnNew York Court of Appeals· 2016-04-28· cited 481×
- United States v. SmallsTenth Circuit· 2010-05-03· cited 259×
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.