State v. Spring

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Spring

199 A.3d 1079, 330 Conn. 963

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedJanuary 23, 2019

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 A.3d 1079 (State v. Spring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Spring, 199 A.3d 1079, 330 Conn. 963 (Colo. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 186 Conn. App. 197, 199 A.3d 21, is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court properly uphold the trial court's determination that the state met its burden of proving that the defendant's statement obtained during a custodial interrogation, which was not recorded in accordance with General Statutes § 54-1o, was nonetheless admissible pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes § 54-1o (h) ?

"2. Should this court exercise its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to require that, when a custodial interrogation subject to the provisions of General Statutes § 54-1o, is not recorded in accordance with that statute, a jury be instructed that it may consider the noncompliance with the recording requirement in determining the weight to accord a statement that is the product of the unrecorded custodial interrogation?"

ROBINSON, C.J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 186 Conn. App. 197, 199 A.3d 21, is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court properly uphold the trial court's determination that the state met its burden of proving that the defendant's statement obtained during a custodial interrogation, which was not recorded in accordance with General Statutes § 54-1o, was nonetheless admissible pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes § 54-1o (h) ?

"2. Should this court exercise its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to require that, when a custodial interrogation subject to the provisions of General Statutes § 54-1o, is not recorded in accordance with that statute, a jury be instructed that it may consider the noncompliance with the recording requirement in determining the weight to accord a statement that is the product of the unrecorded custodial interrogation?"

ROBINSON, C.J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.3d 1079, 330 Conn. 963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-spring-conn-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack