# State v. Brunetti

> Supreme Court of Connecticut · July 11, 2006 · 279 Conn. 39

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7849558

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. NICHOLAS A. BRUNETTI
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Connecticut
- **Decided:** July 11, 2006
- **Citations:** 279 Conn. 39; 901 A.2d 1; 2006 Conn. LEXIS 248
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Vertefeuille
- **Judges:** Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille
- **Cited by:** 107 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7849558

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that prosecutorial questioning about a defendant’s failure to contact the police after giving a statement, in order to correct the statement or provide additional information, is improper under the strictures of Doyle
- stating, in dictum, that presenting claim on appeal that is directly contrary to express claim at trial may constitute induced error
- affirming denial of request for continuance where defense coun- sel knew that individual was likely to be defense witness but made no attempt to locate witness until trial was nearly over
- concluding defendant’s confession was prompted not by unlawful detention but by lawful discovery of untainted, incriminating evidence

## Opinion text

VERTEFEUILLE, J.,
with whom, SULLIVAN, C. J., joins, dissenting. I join Justice Katz’ dissent because the United States Supreme Court recently concluded in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 136 , 126 S. Ct. 1515 , 164 L. Ed. 2d 208 (2006), that under the federal constitution, an alleged consent to the search of a home conducted in the face of an objection from a joint occu *90 pant who is present at the scene is illegal. It is therefore unnecessary to decide this issue under our state constitution.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7849558. Public record. Not legal advice.