154 Conn.App. 102
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Victim (14) worked for defendant Collin (39) as an unpaid apprentice; they entered a sexual relationship including intercourse on defendant’s boat; contacts corroborated by call records and victim sketches.
- Police interviewed the victim at home; detectives then located defendant at marina, asked for consent to search the boat (defendant signed consent), and later asked him to come to the barracks for an interview.
- At the barracks defendant gave a written statement after Miranda warnings, surrendered an "O" ring and consented to searches of the ring, his phone, and later items from the boat; defendant was later arrested and tried.
- After a jury trial defendant was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault in the second degree and risk of injury to a child; he appealed raising five principal claims.
- Trial court excluded expert testimony from Dr. Mantell on false confessions, denied suppression motions (statements and boat evidence), refused a "special scrutiny" jury instruction about unrecorded interrogations, and barred inquiry into the victim’s sexual history beyond certain permissible questioning.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Collin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Exclusion of false-confession expert (Mantell) | Mantell lacked sufficient specialized expertise and proposed testimony lacked a factual nexus to this case. | Mantell is a qualified forensic psychologist who has testified before and familiar with false-confession literature; his testimony would help jurors evaluate the confession. | Court: no abuse—Mantell not shown to have sufficient specialized expertise and proffer lacked direct application to defendant's facts; exclusion affirmed. |
| 2. Custody for Miranda purposes | Interactions were noncoercive, defendant repeatedly told he was free to leave, was unrestrained; a reasonable person would not feel arrested. | Police dominated the marina, isolated defendant, detained him for hours; interrogation was custodial so warnings required. | Court: no custody—trial court’s factual findings supported; denial of suppression upheld. |
| 3. Voluntariness of consent to search boat | Consent was given voluntarily after officers told defendant he could refuse; no coercion or restraint. | Boat was already effectively seized when defendant arrived, so he had no meaningful choice to object—consent involuntary. | Court: consent voluntary—trial court’s findings not clearly erroneous; suppression of boat evidence properly denied. |
| 4. Requested jury instruction to apply "special scrutiny" to unrecorded interrogation | No special rule required; jury given standard credibility and caution instructions sufficed. | Because interrogation was not electronically recorded, jury should be told to apply special scrutiny / caution when assessing the confession. | Court: no abuse—general credibility instructions and specific guidance about weighing statements were adequate; special-instruction request denied. |
| 5. Exclusion of victim’s sexual-history evidence | Proffer did not satisfy Rolon factors; evidence not sufficiently similar, relevant, or necessary and would be unduly prejudicial. | Sexual-history evidence would show alternate source of victim’s sexual knowledge and support fabrication theory; exclusion violated confrontation/present-defense rights. | Court: exclusion proper—defendant failed Rolon test on key prongs; limited cross-examination allowed but full history excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings required when suspect is in custody and subject to interrogation)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree / exclusion principles)
- State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (Conn. 2012) (test for admissibility of expert testimony: specialized skill directly applicable, not common, and helpful to factfinder)
- State v. Rolon, 257 Conn. 156 (Conn. 2001) (framework / five-prong test for admitting victim’s prior sexual-conduct evidence under rape-shield statute)
- State v. Cecil J., 291 Conn. 813 (Conn. 2009) (discussion of confrontation/right to present defense vs. rape-shield protections)
- State v. Jenkins, 298 Conn. 209 (Conn. 2010) (factors and totality-of-circumstances for voluntariness of consent to search)