Case ID: a3d_199/html/1079-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Connecticut v. Christopher M. SPRING
    Supreme Court of Connecticut.
    Decided January 23, 2019
    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.