State v. Dickson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, C.J.
The issue that we must resolve in this certified appeal is whether we should overrule this court's holding in State v. Smith, 200 Conn. 465 , 469, 512 A.2d 189 (1986), 1 and hold that inherently suggestive in-court identifications are inadmissible even in the absence of a suggestive pretrial identification procedure. The defendant, Andrew Dickson, was charged with a variety of offenses after he shot the victim, Albert Weibel, during an attempted robbery. Before trial, the defendant filed a motion to preclude Weibel from making an in-court identification of the defendant on the ground that…
Also in this document: Concurring in the judgment; Concurrence.
2Cases cited109 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
104 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2018
- State v. ThurberSupreme Court of Kansas · 2018
- State v. PurcellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2019
- State v. MartinezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2020
- Garner v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2019
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.