164 Conn.App. 832
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Robert Cushard was arrested in Massachusetts and interrogated by Connecticut state police; he initialed and signed a Miranda waiver and answered questions for about an hour.
- Toward the end of the interview the defendant said he had used crack about one hour before arrest; the detective stopped the interrogation and did not take a written statement.
- Trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the statements, finding under the totality of the circumstances that the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
- Defendant moved to represent himself; an October 2012 canvass was inadequate under Practice Book § 44-3, but the court recanvassed in February 2013 with a proper § 44-3 inquiry and the defendant again waived counsel.
- Jury convicted defendant of assault in the first degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree, and one count of burglary in the first degree; defendant appealed, challenging denial of suppression, the self-representation canvass, and a credibility jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cushard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of custodial statements after alleged recent crack use | Waiver form, coherent behavior, and detective credibility show valid Miranda waiver | Recent cocaine use impaired ability to waive; waiver was involuntary/invalid | Court affirmed denial of suppression; totality of circumstances and officer credibility supported valid waiver |
| Adequacy of October 2012 § 44-3 canvass accepting waiver of counsel | Any deficiency was cured by thorough February 2013 canvass; harmless error | October canvass failed to advise right to counsel and to ensure comprehension of charges; structural error requiring reversal | October canvass was inadequate, but error was harmless because defendant ratified waiver in February 2013 and no specific prejudice shown |
| Whether inadequate canvass is structural error (per se reversible) | Not structural here; harmless-error review appropriate given subsequent valid canvass and lack of prejudice | Inadequate canvass is structural and per se harmful; requires reversal | Court held inadequate canvass here is subject to harmless-error analysis and found no prejudice; not structural error in these circumstances |
| Jury instruction on defendant's interest in outcome (credibility) | Instruction was proper and, read as whole, did not single out defendant unfairly | Language ("will consider") singled out defendant and undermined presumption of innocence and right to testify | Instruction, read in context, was not unfair; Medrano supervisory guidance issued later does not apply retroactively; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishes warnings and waiver requirements for custodial interrogation)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error doctrine and structural error distinction)
- State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2003) (burden and standards for proving Miranda waiver)
- State v. Frye, 224 Conn. 253 (Conn. 1992) (presumption that counsel explained charges may not apply when defendant shows lack of communication)
- State v. Brown, 279 Conn. 493 (Conn. 2006) (application of harmless-error review to Sixth Amendment deprivation)
- State v. Medrano, 308 Conn. 604 (Conn. 2013) (supervisory guidance to avoid instructing jurors to consider defendant’s interest when defendant testifies)