SC20785 - State v. McLaurin ("A jury found the defendant, Gregory
E. McLaurin, guilty of numerous offenses related to a
2018 robbery of a Smashburger restaurant in Milford.
On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant claimed
that the trial court had deprived him of his right to due
process under the federal constitution by denying his
motion to suppress a one-on-one showup identification
of him by a restaurant employee. See State v. McLaurin,
216 Conn. App. 449, 466, 285 A.3d 104 (2022). The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction, concluding that the exigencies of the investigation
justified the police’s use of the showup identification
procedure and, therefore, that the identification was
not unnecessarily suggestive. See id., 466, 470, 479. We
granted the defendant’s petition for certification to
appeal, limited to the issue of whether the Appellate
Court properly upheld the trial court’s denial of his
motion to suppress. See State v. McLaurin, 346 Conn.
903, 287 A.3d 136 (2023). We affirm the judgment of the
Appellate Court and conclude that the defendant’s constitutional right to due process was not violated because,
even if the identification procedure was unnecessarily
suggestive, the identification was reliable.")
SC20846 - State v. Simmons ("On the evening of September 25, 2019, the ninety-three year old victim, Isabella Mehner, was robbed and bludgeoned to death in her own home. The police investigation led to the arrest of the defendant , Robert C. Simmons, who was tried and convicted of the crimes of murder, home invasion, and burglary in the first degree. In this direct appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the trial court improperly declined his request to instruct the jury on third-party culpability, and (3) the prosecutor committed multiple improprieties during closing and rebuttal arguments, which deprived him of his due process right to a fair trial. We affirm the judgment of conviction.")SC20883 - State v. Traynham ("The defendant, Rickey Traynham, in
collaboration with his accomplice, Jordan Rudel, conspired to rob the victim, Rondell Atkinson. After telling
the victim that they would pay him for a ride in his
vehicle, the defendant and Rudel forced the victim to
drive to a park in Woodbridge. Upon arriving at the
park, the defendant and Rudel ordered the victim out
of the car and took his wallet, watch, and cell phone.
Both men then brandished firearms and each shot the
victim, fatally wounding him. After the shooting, Rudel
confided in two people about what he and the defendant
had done to the victim: Adrianna Santiago, his then
girlfriend and the mother of his children; and Monique
Jackson, his father’s longtime girlfriend. In the present
case, the trial court permitted the state to introduce
Rudel’s statements to Santiago and Jackson into evidence against the defendant as dual inculpatory statements under the statement against penal interest
exception to the hearsay rule.
The sole issue in this direct appeal is whether the
trial court improperly allowed the testimony from Santiago and Jackson as dual inculpatory statements under
the statement against penal interest exception to the
hearsay rule. Because Rudel’s statements were indisputably against his penal interest and were sufficiently
trustworthy, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")