Case Title: State v. Gray (Concurrence)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: connecticut

Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Date: 2022-03-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
*********************************************** 
The “officially released” date that appears near the be-
ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-
lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 
released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-
ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 
and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 
date appearing in the opinion. 
 
All opinions are subject to modification and technical 
correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 
Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 
discrepancies between the advance release version of an 
opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 
be considered authoritative. 
 
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 
opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 
bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 
be reproduced and distributed without the express written 
permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica-
tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 
*********************************************** 
STATE v. GRAY—CONCURRENCE
MULLINS, J., concurring in the judgment. I agree with
and join part II of the majority opinion. I also agree
with the majority’s conclusion in part I of its opinion
that the defendant’s unpreserved claim that the trial
court violated the defendant’s due process rights by
admitting coerced and involuntary testimony in the
state’s favor fails under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233,
239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel
R., 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015). I write
separately, however, because I respectfully disagree
with the majority’s analysis in part I of its opinion inso-
far as the majority concludes that the defendant’s claim
fails under the third prong of Golding. Instead, I would
conclude that the defendant’s claim fails under the first
prong of Golding because the record is inadequate for
review. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment.