State v. Krajger
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | Before COTTER; COTTER |
| Citation | 438 A.2d 745,182 Conn. 497 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Bella KRAJGER. |
| Decision Date | 16 December 1980 |
Page 745
v.
Bella KRAJGER.
Decided Dec. 16, 1980.
[182 Conn. 498] Richard Emanuel, Asst. Public Defender, with whom, on the brief, was Jerrold H. Barnett, Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Ernest J. Diette, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Donald A. Browne, State's Atty., and Walter D. Flanagan, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before [182 Conn. 497] COTTER, C. J., and BOGDANSKI, PETERS, HEALEY and PARSKEY, JJ.
[182 Conn. 498] COTTER, Chief Justice.
The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of the crime of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. 1 He has appealed
Page 746
from the judgment rendered on the verdict, claiming error on several grounds. Because we hold that the trial court's error in denying the defendant's motion to suppress certain statements made prior to the time the defendant was informed of his Miranda rights requires a new trial, we do not address the defendant's other claims.The defendant was arrested on February 20, 1975, on unrelated charges of burglary, larceny, possession of stolen checks and escape from custody. Unable to post bond, he was still in police custody [182 Conn. 499] on February 26, 1975. On that date, the defendant was taken from his place of detention to the Bridgeport police headquarters. Subsequent to his arrival, the Bridgeport police questioned him regarding the robbery-related death of a Bridgeport woman. Prior to the one and one-half hours of tape-recorded questioning, the defendant was informed of his Miranda rights.
The issue dispositive of this appeal, however, concerns questioning which took place prior to the tape-recording and prior to the recitation of the defendant's Miranda rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). About five or ten minutes before commencing the taped interrogation and before informing the defendant of his fundamental constitutional rights under the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the sixth amendment right to counsel, a captain in the Bridgeport police force approached the holding cell where the defendant was then in custody. The police captain, standing a few feet away from the cell, held up a light jacket. In response to an inquiry by the captain, the defendant responded: "Yes, that's my jacket." 2
The jacket which the captain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stankowski
...police should have known were reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses from the defendant. Cf. State v. Krajger, --- Conn. ---, 438 A.2d 745 Page 927 III The defendant claims that the court erred in excluding the testimony of a six-year-old child, Stephen Stankowski, who is a nep......
-
State v. Copeland, 12828
...v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 136, 439 A.2d 918, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052, 102 S.Ct. 596, 70 L.Ed.2d 588 (1981); cf. State v. Krajger, 182 Conn. 497, 499 n. 2, 438 A.2d 745 (1980). Since there was no "interrogation"[205 Conn. 208] there was no need for Miranda warnings and the defendant'......
-
State v. Wright
...in front of the defendant was coercive conduct designed to elicit an incriminating response. The defendant cites State v. Krajger, 182 Conn. 497, 438 A.2d 745 (1980), for this proposition, but the facts of Krajger are far different from those In Krajger, our Supreme Court held that the acti......
-
Page Motor Co., Inc. v. Baker
...1193; the law of nuisance clearly involves the proper weighing analysis. Surface water invasions should not be treated any differently[182 Conn. 497] from invasions of smoke, vibrations or noise. Courts are familiar with nuisance concepts and can easily apply the law of nuisance to surface ......
-
State v. Stankowski
...police should have known were reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses from the defendant. Cf. State v. Krajger, --- Conn. ---, 438 A.2d 745 Page 927 III The defendant claims that the court erred in excluding the testimony of a six-year-old child, Stephen Stankowski, who is a nep......
-
State v. Copeland, 12828
...v. Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 136, 439 A.2d 918, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052, 102 S.Ct. 596, 70 L.Ed.2d 588 (1981); cf. State v. Krajger, 182 Conn. 497, 499 n. 2, 438 A.2d 745 (1980). Since there was no "interrogation"[205 Conn. 208] there was no need for Miranda warnings and the defendant'......
-
State v. Wright
...in front of the defendant was coercive conduct designed to elicit an incriminating response. The defendant cites State v. Krajger, 182 Conn. 497, 438 A.2d 745 (1980), for this proposition, but the facts of Krajger are far different from those In Krajger, our Supreme Court held that the acti......
-
Page Motor Co., Inc. v. Baker
...1193; the law of nuisance clearly involves the proper weighing analysis. Surface water invasions should not be treated any differently[182 Conn. 497] from invasions of smoke, vibrations or noise. Courts are familiar with nuisance concepts and can easily apply the law of nuisance to surface ......