Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Garrison — dissenting
July 26, 2024350 Conn. 61
Summary
The dissent would affirm the Appellate Court's determination that the defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes during police questioning in the hospital and that admitting his statements was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. It emphasizes the defendant's intoxication, medical treatment, IV attachment, instruction not to leave until medically sober, and prolonged questioning by multiple officers. The dissent adopts the Appellate Court's reasoning rather than repeating it. McDonald, J., joined by Ecker, J., dissents and would affirm the judgment requiring a new trial.