From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Spring

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 23, 2019
330 Conn. 963 (Conn. 2019)

Opinion

01-23-2019

STATE of Connecticut v. Christopher M. SPRING

Timothy H. Everett, assigned counsel, in support of the petition. Matthew A. Weiner, assistant state's attorney, in opposition.


Timothy H. Everett, assigned counsel, in support of the petition.

Matthew A. Weiner, assistant state's attorney, in opposition.

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.


Summaries of

State v. Spring

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Jan 23, 2019
330 Conn. 963 (Conn. 2019)
Case details for

State v. Spring

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Connecticut v. Christopher M. SPRING

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Jan 23, 2019

Citations

330 Conn. 963 (Conn. 2019)
199 A.3d 1079

Citing Cases

State v. Christopher S.

And (2) "[s]hould this court exercise its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to require…