Skip to main content

State v. Russaw

Citations

  • 203 Conn. App. 123

Syllabus

Convicted of the crimes of manslaughter in the second degree and evading responsibility in connection with an incident in which he struck two pedestrians while operating a stolen vehicle and then fleeing the scene, the defendant appealed to this court. One of the pedestrians died as a result of her injuries. The day after the incident, the police brought the defendant to the Hartford Police Department, placed him in an interview room, and advised him of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436). The defendant signed a form waiving these rights. The police then questioned the defendant about an unrelated shooting until he requested a lawyer. The police ceased their questioning and processed the defendant, informing him that he was being booked for murder. After hearing this, the defendant told the police that he was willing to continue speaking to them without the presence of an attorney. The police again advised the defendant of his Miranda rights and he signed another form waiving the same. The police then resumed questioning the defendant regarding the shooting, before switching topics to discuss the motor vehicle incident. The police did not readvise the defendant of his Miranda rights prior to discussing the motor vehicle incident. During the interrogation, the defendant admitted that he was the opera- tor of the vehicle that struck the two pedestrians and he signed a written statement to that effect. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress his statements made during the interrogation, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress because his statements were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights under Miranda. Held: 1. The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress his statements: a. The defendant's claim that the police were required to administer a new set of Miranda warnings prior to questioning him about the motor veh

Judges: Alvord; Prescott; DiPentima

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.