State v. Johnson, 312 Conn. 687

Defendant Nathan S. Johnson was convicted of first-degree assault, first-degree robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and related firearms offenses in Connecticut court.
The central claim on appeal was that the victim’s identification of Johnson resulted from unduly suggestive private conduct, raising due process concerns under the Connecticut Constitution.
The trial court denied suppression of the identification, and Johnson challenged the ruling on appeal.
The court initially considered whether private conduct tainting an identification implicates state constitutional due process principles, potentially overriding Holliman’s evidentiary standard.
The court ultimately held that, in the absence of state action, unduly suggestive private conduct does not automatically implicate the state constitution; such identifications are inadmissible only if extremely unreliable under an evidentiary framework.
The judgment of conviction was affirmed; Johnson did not prevail on the state-constitutional claim and the private-conduct issue was treated as an evidentiary matter rather than a constitutional violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does unduly suggestive private conduct implicate the state constitution's due process clause?	Johnson contends state constitution protects against private-conduct suggestiveness.	State should not extend Holliman to private conduct as constitutional protection.	No automatic state-constitutional implication; evidentiary analysis applies.
Is Holliman's evidentiary framework for private conduct valid under the state constitution?	Holliman provides insufficient protection; needs stricter reliability review.	Holliman appropriately limits constitutional scope to private conduct.	Holliman framework remains applicable; not constitutional violation to apply it.
Can the victim’s private identification be suppressed under due process if extremely unreliable?	Identification tainted by private conduct may be excluded.	Only extremely unreliable identifications would impair due process.	Identifications are subject to standard evidentiary reliability; not automatically barred.

State v. Holliman, 214 Conn. 38 (1990) (private unduly suggestive conduct governed by evidentiary rule; not automatic federal due process)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012) (private conduct not state action; due process not implicated absent police overreach)
State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672 (1992) (six-factor framework for state constitutional issue analysis)
State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (2012) (recognizes reliability framework for eyewitness identifications; balance of factors)
State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 (2010) (discusses Biggers framework; caution about evolving reliability standards)