State v. Sumler
Citations
- 199 Conn. App. 187
Syllabus
Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crimes of murder, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree and carrying a pistol without a permit, and, after a trial to the court, of the crime of criminal possession of a pistol or revolver, the defendant appealed. The defendant's conviction stemmed from an incident in which he shot and killed a convenience store clerk while he and another individual were robbing the store. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude the state from introducing testimony from his former probation officer, D, regarding her identifica- tion of him in a surveillance video from a grocery store, and a motion to suppress two statements that he made during a conversation with a police officer while he was being transported to the police department following his arrest for violation of probation. Following a hearing, the trial court denied both motions. Held: 1. The defendant's unpreserved claim that the trial judge violated his constitu- tional right to due process by improperly failing to recuse himself from presiding over the defendant's trial because he previously had signed search and seizure and arrest warrants against the defendant in this case was unavailing: because the defendant did not assert actual bias on the part of the trial judge, his claim necessarily failed, and, therefore, he could not prevail pursuant to State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233), as he did not demonstrate the existence of a constitutional violation; moreover, this court was not persuaded by the defendant's assertion that the trial judge's failure to recuse himself constituted plain error because, at minimum, it created an appearance of impropriety, as the judge's conduct was not expressly prohibited by our rules, statutes, or case law, and, therefore, it did not constitute plain error or even error at all. 2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting D's testimony identifying the defendant in the surveillance video from the groc
Judges: Prescott; Devlin; Bishop
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1966-06-13· cited 58,288×
- Manson v. BrathwaiteSupreme Court· 1977-06-16· cited 5,119×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- Rippo v. BakerSupreme Court· 2017-03-06· cited 163×
- State v. VitaleSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-09-10· cited 160×
- State v. FaganSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-09-26· cited 122×
- Fagan v. ConnecticutSupreme Court· 2007-03-05· cited 108×
- State v. CanalesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-03-13· cited 82×
- State v. RizzoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-11-29· cited 62×
- State v. HolleySupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-01-12· cited 51×
- State v. FinanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-08-16· cited 34×
- State v. GonzalezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-09-06· cited 30×
- Tracey v. TraceyConnecticut Appellate Court· 2006-08-29· cited 14×
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.