Case Name: State of Connecticut v. Juan Soto
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1988-03-30
Citations: 14 Conn. App. 806
Docket Number: 6093
Parties: State of Connecticut v. Juan Soto
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 806–807

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.