State v. Christopher S., SC20247

Background

Defendant Christopher S. challenged the admission of an unrecorded custodial statement under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-1o(h), which creates a presumption that unrecorded custodial statements are inadmissible unless the state proves by a preponderance that the statement was "voluntarily given."
At trial the state met its burden and the statement was admitted; the Appellate Court affirmed that decision.
The Connecticut Supreme Court majority affirmed the Appellate Court judgment; Justice Mullins (joined by Justice Kahn) concurred in the result but disagreed with the majority’s characterization of the statutory claim as constitutional.
Mullins J. emphasizes prior Connecticut precedent holding that there is no constitutional requirement to record custodial interrogations (e.g., Lockhart, Edwards) and that the legislature, not the courts, enacted § 54-1o.
Mullins J. agrees that the statutory term "voluntarily" should be interpreted using the traditional due‑process/confession voluntariness factors (totality of circumstances), but insists that invoking that term in the statute does not transform the statutory claim into a constitutional one.
He notes comparable treatments in other jurisdictions (Texas decisions) and analogous Connecticut statutory/constitutional overlaps (e.g., § 53a-64bb(b) and double jeopardy jurisprudence).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a claim under § 54-1o(h) alleging involuntariness is constitutional in nature	State: The statute requires the state to prove voluntariness; the claim can be treated consistent with constitutional standards	Christopher S.: The claim arises under the statute and should be treated as statutory (Appellate Court view)	Mullins J.: The claim is statutory, not constitutional; concurrence affirms result but rejects elevation to constitutional claim
Whether "voluntarily" in § 54-1o(h) incorporates due‑process voluntariness standards	State: "Voluntarily" should be interpreted using the well‑established voluntariness/confession factors	Defendant: Statutory voluntariness should be evaluated under the statute (but uses same factors)	Held: The traditional due‑process factors apply to determine voluntariness under § 54-1o(h)
Proper standard of appellate review for an unpreserved statutory vs constitutional claim	State: If framed constitutionally, reviewed under constitutional standards	Defendant: Statutory claims reviewed under ordinary appellate standards (preservation rules apply)	Held: Mullins J. — statutory claims should be reviewed as statutory; defendants may separately raise constitutional involuntariness claims which receive constitutional review
Whether legislature may create constitutional rights by statute	State/majority: Majority treated the statutory voluntariness claim as having constitutional magnitude	Defendant/Appellate Court: Legislature cannot create constitutional rights by statute; statutory rights remain statutory	Held: Mullins J.: Legislature cannot create constitutional rights; § 54-1o is statutory even where it tracks constitutional principles

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lockhart, 298 Conn. 537 (2010) (Connecticut has not recognized a constitutional right to recorded custodial interrogations)
State v. Edwards, 299 Conn. 419 (2011) (declining to impose a constitutional recording requirement; supervisory power not used to mandate recordings)
State v. Piorkowski, 236 Conn. 388 (1996) (statutory use of "voluntary" should be given its meaning from confession law)
State v. Spring, 186 Conn. App. 197 (2018) (Appellate Court: due‑process voluntariness factors apply to § 54-1o(h))
State v. Ramos, 317 Conn. 19 (2015) (describing totality‑of‑circumstances factors for voluntariness and burden of proof)
State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141 (2007) (voluntariness analysis under due process principles)
State v. Urbanowski, 327 Conn. 169 (2017) (statutory protections overlapping with constitutional double jeopardy; distinguishing statutory vs constitutional claims)
Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (federal principle that courts, not legislatures, interpret/define constitutional rights)
Nonn v. State, 117 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (Texas: statutory recording requirements are evidentiary/nonconstitutional in nature)