Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Johnson
February 3, 2026354 Conn. 96
Summary
The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that defense counsel waived any Miranda challenge to the September 23 interview, that the September 24 interview complied with the state constitutional stop-and-clarify requirement, and that the warrant for the defendant’s cell phone records was supported by probable cause and sufficiently particular. The court also rejected the defendant’s additional disclosure and jury-instruction claims. D’AURIA, J., dissenting in part, would have suppressed the September 24 statements because the detective’s response to the request for counsel was misleading and insufficiently clarifying.