145 Conn. App. 547
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- On Jan. 18, 2010, a known confidential informant told Officer Stem that a Hispanic male in a white van at the T Market in Bridgeport offered to sell an Uzi-type pistol wrapped in a black garbage bag. Stem had relied on this informant previously.
- Stem arrived ~10 minutes later, saw the defendant next to a white van matching the description, detained and patted him; the van’s side door was open and a black garbage bag was visible inside.
- Officer Delbouno seized the bag and recovered a loaded Uzi-type pistol. The defendant made unsolicited oral statements at the scene claiming the van was his and that he was "holding the weapon for Fats" in exchange for heroin. The informant identified the defendant on scene.
- The defendant was arrested and the next morning executed a Miranda waiver and gave a written statement admitting he agreed to hold the firearm for heroin.
- Charged with carrying a pistol without a permit (Conn. Gen. Stat. §29-35), unlawful weapon possession in a vehicle (§29-38), and possession of an assault weapon (§53-202c). Trial court denied motions to suppress evidence, suppress statements, and to disclose the informant’s identity; jury convicted on all counts. Defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Crespo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Warrantless search of van — probable cause (automobile exception) | Informant was reliable, provided detailed, corroborated, timely first-hand information supporting probable cause to search van for the gun. | Informant tip insufficient; search illegal and fruit of search should be suppressed. | Court affirmed: totality of circumstances established probable cause (informant nonanonymous, reliable history, corroboration by Stem). |
| 2. Suppression of oral and written statements | Oral statements were voluntary and unsolicited; written statement was preceded by valid Miranda waiver. | Oral statements unreliable due to officer credibility problems; written statement inadmissible under Conn. Gen. Stat. §54-1c (failure to present defendant at next court session). | Court affirmed: trial court credited officer testimony; §54-1c does not mandate per se suppression of statements made prior to delayed presentment absent demonstration that post-arrest delay caused by interrogation rendered them inadmissible. |
| 3. Disclosure of informant identity | Informant privilege applies; informant was not a participant or eyewitness to the charged offenses and disclosure would harm law enforcement interests. | Informant’s identity should be disclosed because Stem’s testimony did not sufficiently establish informant reliability and defense needs identity to impeach/defend. | Court affirmed: Roviaro balancing favored nondisclosure — informant merely supplied information, not a participant or material witness to charged offenses. |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence for carrying a pistol without permit (§29-35) | Evidence and defendant’s admissions supported inference he obtained, carried, wrapped and stored the gun in his van after receiving it from "Fats" — meeting "carrying" (control/dominion) element. | Evidence only showed constructive possession of the gun in the van, not that he carried it on his person as required by §29-35. | Court affirmed: reasonable jury could infer defendant carried the pistol on his person (held, transported, wrapped and placed it in van) and thus convicted under §29-35. |
| 5. Motion for mistrial / judicial misconduct | N/A | Court’s critical remarks to defense counsel in front of jury showed bias and deprived defendant of fair trial; mistrial required. | Court affirmed denial: judge’s admonitions were within discretion to control proceedings; comments did not show prejudice that impaired defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925) (establishes automobile exception to warrant requirement)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-circumstances test for informant tips and probable cause)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957) (framework for balancing informant privilege against defendant’s right to fair trial)
- McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1943) (federal prompt-presentment rule context)
- Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1957) (federal rule on delay in presenting accused)
- Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 (U.S. 1961) (discusses admissibility of confessions given before unlawful delay)
- Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303 (U.S. 2009) (addresses McNabb-Mallory remedial scope for unlawful delays in presentment)