Case ID: conn-app_14/html/0806-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State of Connecticut v. Juan Soto
    (6093)
    Dupont, C. J., Borden and Foti, Js.
    Argued March 1 —
    decision released March 30, 1988
    
      David M. Abbamonte, for the appellant (defendant).
    
      
      RichardF. Jacobson, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, assistant state’s attorney, and Donald A. Browne, state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
   Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, of possession of narcotics with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b), and conspiracy in violation of General Statutes § 53a-48. The defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in finding that his oral statements to the police were given voluntarily, in light of a comment by a police officer to the defendant that “cooperation would probably help and wouldn’t hurt him.” Our review of the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant’s statements were given voluntarily and were not induced by a promise of leniency by the police. State v. Householder, 7 Conn. App. 1, 9-10, 507 A.2d 1012 (1986).

There is no error.