157 Conn.App. 290
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Christensen was investigated for trafficking child pornography after ISP records were obtained via ex parte orders; a search of his apartment on Jan. 22, 2013 uncovered digital evidence and active downloading of child pornography.
- At the apartment, a trooper questioned Christensen but did not expressly arrest him or tell him he was not free to leave; Christensen said "very bad things."
- Christensen agreed to speak in a police cruiser, executed a written Miranda waiver, admitted using P2P to download/share child pornography, and later signed a written statement after a polygraph.
- Police seized computers and found child pornography; Christensen was then arrested and charged with first‑degree possession of child pornography (§ 53a‑196d).
- Christensen moved to suppress (statements made at home, in cruiser, and written statement); the trial court denied suppression: not custodial at home, Miranda given before cruiser statements, and written statement voluntary.
- Christensen sought a conditional nolo contendere plea under § 54‑94a; the court denied it as the suppression ruling was not dispositive because independent physical evidence remained. He withdrew that request, pleaded guilty, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Christensen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress statements made pre‑arrest and subsequent statements | Suppression denial was correct: initial statement not custodial; later statements were preceded by Miranda waiver and were voluntary | Initial apartment statement was custodial and its admission tainted later verbal/written statements (fruits of poisonous tree) | Waived by guilty plea; court declined to review merits (if reached, trial court had found no custody at home and Miranda/voluntariness for later statements) |
| Whether the court erred in denying a conditional nolo contendere plea under § 54‑94a | Denial proper because even if suppression granted, remaining physical/digital evidence (computers, active downloads) would allow prosecution to proceed | The suppression ruling would be dispositive and thus § 54‑94a relief should be permitted | Waived by guilty plea; court would not review, and trial court reasonably found suppression not dispositive given remaining evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty pleas generally waive nonjurisdictional pretrial claims)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (voluntary, intelligent pleas waive certain rights)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 393 U.S. 238 (1969) (plea must be voluntary and intelligent to be valid)
- State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92 (1985) (Connecticut rule that unconditional guilty pleas waive nonjurisdictional defects)
- State v. Johnson, 253 Conn. 1 (2000) (trial court need not canvass plea waiver of pretrial challenges)