Posts tagged with "Miranda rights"

DUI Suspect Did Not Have Right to be “Selectively Silent;” Rebuttal Inquiry Did Not Violate Constitutional Protections

The Appellate Court of Connecticut considered whether a prosecutor’s line of inquiry violated a defendant’s due process rights against self-incrimination under the state and federal constitutions.

The Incident

This case arose from an incident that occurred at 1:22am on April 9, 2008. A state trooper was on routine patrol along I-95 in Fairfield, CT, when he received a report of an erratic driver in his vicinity. He promptly located the vehicle in question, which was driving only 35mph in a 55mph zone. In addition, the trooper saw the vehicle swerve multiple times and nearly strike a guardrail.

Therefore, the trooper initiated a traffic stop. While interacting with the driver, who was later identified as the defendant, the trooper made the following observations: bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and the distinct odor of alcohol. The trooper spotted a plastic cup with a tan liquid in the center console, but the defendant would not answer any questions regarding it.

The trooper asked the defendant to exit the vehicle and administered three field sobriety tests. The defendant was then arrested for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (OMVUI) and transported to state police barracks located in Bridgeport, CT. There, he agreed to submit to two breathalyzer tests, both taken within two hours of the defendant operating his car and with results over the legal limit. The defendant was advised of his Miranda rights and presented with questions from a motor vehicle supplemental form (A44 form): the defendant answered some, but refused to answer others regarding alcohol and food consumption.

The Trial

Before trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude the admission of the A44 form, citing his constitutional right against self-incrimination, but the court denied the motion. At trial, the State conducted an “offer of proof” through the trooper regarding the A44 form, and the defendant objected, but the form was admitted into evidence. On cross-examination, defense counsel engaged the trooper in a line of questioning regarding the defendant’s cooperation in answering questions from the form.

On redirect, the State asked whether the trooper inquired about the amount the defendant had to drink, and the defense objected on the ground of self-incrimination. The State argued that “the line of questioning had been opened by the defendant,” and the court agreed and overruled the objection. The defendant was subsequently found guilty by a jury and he appealed his conviction, arguing in part that his due process rights were violated by admission of the A44 form and related questioning during trial.

When one party engages a witness in a particular subject during examination at trial, he or she “cannot object if the opposing party later questions the witness on the same subject.” This is known as “opening the door” to rebuttal. Where a defendant has been advised of his Miranda rights, he does not also have the right to be “selectively silent.” Thus, the right against self-incrimination is inapplicable to a factual scenario where a defendant so advised chooses to answer some questions but “selectively declines to answer several others.”

The Court’s Decision

In this case, the Appellate Court found that when the defense asked the trooper questions related to the defendant’s cooperation regarding the A44, the State had every right to follow up with questions on redirect evidencing the unresponsive answers. As the Court stated, “The defendant cannot reap the benefits of inquiry into one subject and expect the state’s questioning within the same scope to be held impermissible.” Therefore, there was no abuse of discretion when the court allowed the State’s inquiry on redirect regarding the defendant’s refusal to answer questions related to alcohol and food consumption. After addressing additional grounds for appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed judgment in its entirety.

When faced with a charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (a.k.a. driving under the influence), an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

Though Defendant’s Statement Was Not A “Model of English Grammar and Spelling,” It Was Voluntarily Made

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

In a criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress a written statement, claiming his Miranda waiver was not properly made and his statement was voluntary.

Case Background

This case arose from an incident that occurred on August 4, 2004 in Danbury, Connecticut. Following a roadway altercation, two victims were subject to a brutal beating inflicted by the defendant and his friends. One victim was repeatedly punched and kicked in the head, resulting in very significant head-related injuries, the need for an abdominal feeding tube for two months, and extensive physical, speech, and occupational therapy.

The defendant was later apprehended in Rhode Island by federal authorities. En route to Connecticut, Danbury officers transporting the defendant stopped at a McDonald’s restaurant to get him food. There, the defendant wished to give a statement, which was taken after he was given his Miranda warnings and signed a waiver of rights form.

Defendant Claims Statement was Involuntary

Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress his statement. He claimed that he drank roughly one gallon of Hennessy cognac with a codefendant twenty hours before being arrested. The defendant argued he was still intoxicated at the time he gave the written statement, so his waiver was not voluntary. To bolster his position, he cited the statement, “which was replete with typographical and grammatical errors, evincing that he merely wrote what the police instructed him to write.”

The State countered that due to the passage of time, the defendant was not under the influence at the time he gave his statement. One Danbury officer testified that the defendant did not appear as such at the McDonald’s, and that he had eaten two meals while in custody prior to giving the statement.

The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the State’s argument. It noted the defendant’s express interest in giving the statement and that he voluntarily signed the form, among other findings. In addition, the court stated that the statement was “clear and not reflective of someone who was under the influence of alcohol.” Though it was not a “model of English grammar and spelling,” the statement was comprehensible.

Court’s Ruling

The defendant was subsequently convicted of assault in the first degree, conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree, and two counts assault in the first degree as an accessory. Post-sentencing he appealed, arguing in part that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to suppress. The defendant reiterated his previous arguments that the statement was not voluntarily made.

A waiver of Miranda rights must be made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. It is the burden of the State to prove a valid waiver by the preponderance of the evidence, and a reviewing court will look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the waiver is valid. In this case, the Appellate Court determined that there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings that the statement was voluntary and the waiver valid. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the written statement.

When faced with a charge of assault or conspiracy, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.