Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Court of Appeals Update (10/20/2009)

Reversals and other interesting issues.

State v. Galindo. Melendez-Diaz. Applying the new high court's decision in Melendez-Diaz (2009), the court found that a lab supervisor's testimony, based solely on a hearsay lab report of another analyst, violated the confrontation clause.

Less interesting cases.

State v. Carrouthers. Trial court suppressed evidence. Case remanded for findings as to whether the officer's handcuffing of the defendant constituted arrest or simply an investigative stop. (It would be investigative if handcuffing was the least intrusive means reasonably necessary to carry out the stop, even if the defendant didn't feel free to leave once handcuffed.)

State v. Magnino. No constitutional separation of powers issue in Gen. Stat. 20-38.6(f) provision that district court to only rule preliminarily on suppression issues in implied consent cases (by driving on the roads, you give your implied consent to be tested if officers believe you are DWI), subject to appeal to Superior Court by the state.

State v. Rackley. No right of the appeal for the state to COA on Superior Court affirmance of district court suppression in an implied consent case.

No comments: