State v. Ortiz
In State v. Ortiz, 101 Conn. App. 411, 922 A.2d 244, 256 (Conn. App. Ct.), appeal denied, 283 Conn. 911, 928 A.2d 538 (Conn. 2007), a witness was permitted to testify that Kimberly Lebel stated, in Ortiz's presence, that she and Ortiz "robbed some old man" and stabbed him, and the man died.
The Appellate Court of Connecticut concluded that Ortiz's silence constituted an admission of guilt. Id. at 258.
The court then addressed Ortiz's argument that permitting this adoptive admission to come into evidence violated his right to confrontation. Id. at 259.
The court rejected that argument, stating:
"Here, the defendant adopted Lebel's statement as his own; thus, the lack of opportunity to cross-examine Lebel does not violate the confrontation clause. See United States v. Allen, 10 F.3d 405, 413-14 (7th Cir. 1993) ("The lack of opportunity to cross-examine the declarant of a statement the defendant has adopted as his own does not violate the confrontation clause. . . . The reason for this is not difficult to understand. An adoptive admission is a statement that the defendant has adopted as his own. Thus the defendant himself is, in effect, the declarant. The witness against the defendant is the defendant himself, not the actual declarant; there is no violation of the defendant's right to confront the declarant because the defendant only has the right to confront the witnesses against him." Id. at 259.