Posts tagged with "refusal"

Defendant’s Refusal to Provide Identification and Flight From Scene Constituted Interference With An Officer

Leave a reply

In a criminal law matter, the Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed an Appellate Court’s conclusion that the State provided insufficient evidence that the defendant committed officer interference in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-167a.

The Case

This case arose from an incident that occurred on June 22, 2003. The defendant’s brother was involved in an automobile accident in Bridgeport. As the defendant drove by, she operated her vehicle in an erratic manner and pulled into a nearby parking lot. Officers told the defendant they were issuing her an infraction ticket and repeatedly asked for her license, registration, and insurance. The defendant refused and began swearing at the officers, stating they would not stop her from bringing her brother to the hospital.

Because the defendant was becoming loud and belligerent, officers decided to arrest her. However, the defendant’s mother was present and interrupted, stating her daughter did nothing wrong. With the officers’ attention drawn away, the defendant ran into the road, got into a vehicle, and drove away, despite orders not to leave the scene. The defendant’s mother spoke to the defendant via cell phone, who indicated she would return after bringing her brother to the hospital. However, the defendant did not return, so officers proceeded to the hospital, where they located and arrested her.

The Charges

The defendant was charged with two counts of interfering with a peace officer, among other charges. One count involved her statements and refusal to provide identification when asked, and the second count was for leaving the scene despite an order to remain.

Following conviction, the Appellate Court reversed, citing insufficient evidence to convict under either count. It reasoned that because another statute, § 14-217, specifically punished a driver’s refusal to provide identification to an officer upon request, the legislature must not have intended to punish such conduct under § 53a-167a because it was not expressly prohibited. The Appellate Court also found that the defendant did not “intentionally [seek] to delay the officer’s efforts to issue her an infraction” when she left the scene to bring her brother to the hospital.

The State’s Appeal

On appeal, the State argued there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant on the first count because she refused to provide identification. The Supreme Court agreed, citing a decision in which it ruled that “the legislature intended to prohibit any act which would amount to meddling in or hampering the activities of the police in the performance of their duties.” Because the statute was intentionally broad in scope, it was unreasonable to argue that § 53a-167a did not include the defendant’s refusal just because it was not listed. Therefore, it was improper for the Appellate Court to rule that there was insufficient evidence to support conviction.

The State also argued that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant under the second count because she left the scene against officer instructions to remain, and the Supreme Court agreed. The defendant knew officers were attempting to issue an infraction ticket; she refused to provide requested documents; when officers turned their attention to the other, she fled the scene; and officers specifically ordered her not to leave, which she ignored.

As such, officers were unable to immediately effectuate an arrest. Based on this evidence, a jury could reasonably conclude that “the defendant intended to hinder and obstruct the police in the performance of their duties.” Therefore, the Appellate Court erred in its reversal, and the Supreme Court reversed the decision.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

When faced with a charge of interfering with an officer, 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.

Where Defendant Indisputably Refused to Comply With Legitimate Police Order, Conviction for Interference With That Officer Was Proper

Leave a reply

In a criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut upheld a defendant’s conviction for interference with an officer after refusing to comply with the officer’s orders.

The Case

This case arose from an incident that occurred on August 26, 2005. Officer F initiated a valid traffic stop of a motorist and learned the owner of the vehicle had an outstanding warrant. The car belonged to the defendant and was driven by his son. Officer F “decided to use a ruse to arrest the defendant,” using the son’s cell phone to call the defendant and arrange a meeting to discuss a previously-filed stolen vehicle report. Such a tactic is not constitutionally prohibited. The defendant agreed to meet Officer F at a local school parking lot, who then requested assistance from Officer S to bring the defendant into custody.

Officer S arrived first at the parking lot and met the defendant, who was astonished upon learning that there was a warrant for his arrest. The defendant promptly complied with Officer S’s request for his driver’s license, but refused to sit in the back of the police cruiser when asked to do so. According to Officer S, the defendant stated that the officer had “no right to put him back there” and that he did not “need to be back there.” After confirming the warrant, Officer S attempted to place the defendant under arrest.

However, the defendant became combative and belligerent and further refused to comply with Officer S. All verbal commands were ignored, and the defendant continued to resist until Officer F arrived and threatened to use a chemical spray if he persisted. Thereafter, the defendant was cooperative, and charged with interfering with an officer.

The Trial

At trial, the defendant conveyed a much different version of events. He conceded that he did not sit in the back of the police cruiser when asked to do so, but otherwise politely insisted that a mistake had been made. The defendant claimed that Officer S was “curt, unreasonable and overzealous,” and had Officer F been honest about the motivation for the meeting, he would have amicably met him at police headquarters to discuss the matter.

The jury returned a guilty verdict and the defendant timely appealed, arguing that the State produced “no evidence that he physically prevented [Officer S] from arresting him and that verbal statements and nonphysical refusal to comply with an officer’s directive does not constitute a violation of § 53a-167a.” In other words, the defendant argued that one could only interfere with an officer through physical resistance, not by “being verbally defensive or voicing mere declaratory statements.”

What is Considered Interference or Refusal to Comply with an Officer?

Under Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-167a, a person is guilty of interfering with a police officer “when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers” the officer as he is performing his or her official duties. In this case, the jury was presented with two versions of the events regarding whether or not the defendant resisted arrest, and it was within their province, as the arbiter of credibility, to determine which story to believe.

In addition, the Appellate Court noted that the defendant’s refusal to sit in the back of the police cruiser was never in dispute. As such, “[t]he jury reasonably could have inferred that either one of the defendant’s refusals to obey [Officer S] delayed the officer in the performance of his duties in effectuating the defendant’s arrest.” As such, the defendant’s insufficiency of the evidence claim failed.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

When faced with a charge of interfering with a police officer, 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.

Appellate Court Finds Sufficient Evidence to Convict, Declines Review of Other Claims Due to Inadequate Briefing

Leave a reply

In a criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut was not persuaded by a defendant’s claims of insufficient evidence to establish DUI and would not review his claim of prosecutorial impropriety because his appellate brief was inadequate.

Case Background

This case arose from an incident that occurred at 7pm in Wilton on December 19, 2007. A citizen saw the defendant driving very slowly, hitting the right curb repeatedly, and nearly colliding with three cars in the opposite lane. This citizen and others boxed in the defendant after he came to a stop in the wrong lane. Police soon arrived and observed the smell of alcohol, the defendant’s slurred speech, and what appeared to be a red wine stain on his shirt.

They administered the standard field sobriety tests, but the defendant failed one and then refused to perform the other two. He was arrested and brought to police headquarters, where he refused to submit to a breath test. The defendant admitted to consuming multiple drinks in his vehicle starting one hour before he was stopped.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (OMVUI) of alcohol in violation of Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) § 14-227a(a)(1). During closing arguments, the prosecutor stated, “What bigger piece of circumstantial evidence would there be if the defendant was under the influence other than his refusal to take the test?” The defendant was subsequently convicted, though he appealed on multiple grounds. He argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove OMVUI. He further claimed that prosecutorial impropriety deprived him of a fair trial, because the prosecutor’s statement constituted compulsory self-incrimination.

Establishing an OMVUI Conviction

To convict a defendant of OMVUI, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he operated a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. When a reviewing court adjudicates a sufficiency of the evidence claim, it construes the evidence so as to favor sustaining the verdict. It then determines whether, based on the facts and attendant inferences, a reasonable jury would have found that “the cumulative effect of the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

A jury may consider, pursuant to CGS § 14-227a(e), any inference regarding a defendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical alcohol test. In this case, the Appellate Court found ample evidence that the defendant committed OMVUI, based on his appearance and behavior, the field sobriety tests, and his refusal to submit to a breath test. Therefore, the Court rejected this claim.

The Court’s Decision

Courts are under no duty to review claims that are inadequately briefed. As the Appellate Court discussed in a previous case, “Where a claim is asserted in the statement of issues but thereafter receives only cursory attention in the brief without substantive discussion or citation of authorities, it is deemed to be abandoned.”

In this case, the Appellate Court declined to review the defendant’s claim of prosecutorial impropriety because his brief was not adequate. He did not provide “any analysis, or cite any legal authority, to explain how his fifth amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is implicated by the prosecutor’s statement in the present case.” After reviewing one additional claim on review, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

When faced with a charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (a.k.a. driving under the influence) or license suspension, 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.

Jury Instruction Relating to Defendant’s Refusal to Submit to a Breath Test Upheld by State Appellate Court

Leave a reply

In a criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut did not find that a trial court’s jury instruction on consciousness of guilt, as it related to a defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath test, was improper.

Case Background

This case arose from an incident that occurred on August 7, 2005. The defendant and his friend spent approximately six hours fishing on Long Island Sound, during which the defendant drank four beers. Approximately an hour later, the defendant drove his friend to Danbury. While returning to his home in Norwalk, the defendant approached a well-marked construction zone that closed down one lane.

The defendant swerved into this lane and crashed into a large orange sign, then continued toward the construction site. He nearly struck an off-duty Wilton police officer, who ordered the defendant into a nearby parking lot. The defendant was arrested after he failed multiple field sobriety tests administered by two officers, in conjunction with their observations of the smell of alcohol, glassy and glazed eyes, and disheveled clothing.

The Trial

At the police station, the defendant was asked to submit to a breath test and advised of his right to counsel. He unsuccessfully attempted to contact an attorney, and then was asked once more to submit to the breath test. Because the defendant again insisted on speaking to an attorney, he was advised that his continued request would be deemed a refusal to take the test, but the defendant persisted.

During trial, the judge instructed the jury that the defendant’s conduct may tend to show consciousness of guilt, and “if [the jury found] the defendant did refuse to submit to [the breath test, the jury] may make any reasonable inference that follows from that fact.” The defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (OMVUI) in violation of State law. He appealed on multiple grounds, including, in part, the claim that the court improperly instructed the jury that refusing to submit to a breath test could be treated as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Determining a Charge of the Court

When a court considers a charge of the court, it must determine “whether [the instruction] fairly presents the case to the jury in such a way that injustice is not done to either party.” The instructions are not dissected in a piecemeal fashion; rather, when the challenge to a jury instruction does not raise a constitutional question, the reviewing court will consider its total effect. General Statute § 14-227a, the State’s OMVUI law, includes a subsection that reads, “[T]he court shall instruct the jury as to any inference that may or may not be drawn from the defendant’s refusal to submit to a … breath … test.” In other words, the Connecticut legislature intended for courts to instruct juries on “permissive inferences.”

The Court’s Decision

In this case, the Appellate Court reviewed the language of the jury instruction and determined it was “well within the parameters of § 14-227a.” The court repeatedly told the jury that consciousness of guilt was only a permissive inference; as such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Appellate Court argued that even if the instruction was improper, the defendant failed to provide evidence that it was harmful. The Court noted the amount of evidence, other than the defendant’s refusal, that indicated he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

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.