State v. Dabate, 351 Conn. 428

Background

Richard Dabate was tried and convicted for the December 23, 2015 murder of his wife and related offenses after the state argued he staged a home invasion to conceal the killing. The jury returned guilty verdicts and he received a 65‑year effective sentence.
Key physical and electronic evidence included DNA, security system logs, social media activity, and minute‑by‑minute movement data from the victim’s Fitbit, which contradicted Dabate’s timeline and supported the state’s theory.
Dabate gave an extended hospital interview to detectives before arrest; he later invoked counsel and the trial court suppressed only statements made after that invocation. He moved to suppress other parts of the interview as custodial (Miranda) statements but the court denied that relief.
During trial the prosecutor engaged in multiple contested lines of questioning and argument: references to inadmissible materials (e.g., a banned “Cheshire” reference), questions about uncharged misconduct (e.g., Vermont trip intent), impeaching with pre‑arrest silence, and inflammatory rebuttal comments. The trial court sustained many objections, gave curative instructions, and struck limited testimony for nondisclosure.
Dabate appealed, asserting (1) multiple instances of prosecutorial impropriety; (2) that the improprieties warranted reversal under the court’s supervisory authority; (3) that Fitbit data was improperly admitted; and (4) that parts of the hospital interview should have been suppressed under Miranda.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Dabate's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial impropriety — alleged violations of court rulings, Singh, improper use of uncharged misconduct, improper summation and comments on counsel	Prosecutor’s questions and arguments were proper impeachment or within permissible advocacy; many challenged questions were not Singh violations; curative instructions addressed misconduct; some references were ambiguous or harmless	Multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct (including using the word “Cheshire,” improper Vermont question, inflammatory jury insults, and nondisclosure of an expert opinion) cumulatively deprived him of a fair trial	Court found four instances of impropriety (Cheshire reference, Vermont intent question, jury‑gullible comment, nondisclosure of Dr. Johndro’s opinion) but held they did not, alone or cumulatively, deprive Dabate of a fair trial given curative measures and the strength of the state’s case
Supervisory authority — whether reversal is warranted as a sanction	The improprieties were isolated, the court repeatedly cured or admonished, and the state’s case was strong; reversal not necessary	Prosecutor’s conduct was repeated, deliberate, and undermined trial fairness; supervisory reversal required to deter misconduct	Court declined to exercise supervisory authority; improprieties were serious and condemned but not sufficient to warrant reversal under supervisory powers
Admissibility of Fitbit evidence under Porter/Daubert framework	Fitbit data is reliable and admissible; expert Diaz’s testimony met Porter factors (peer review, validation studies, general acceptance, extrajudicial use)	Fitbit evidence was unreliable and expert lacked knowledge of proprietary algorithm and device specifics; data should be excluded	Trial court did not abuse discretion; Diaz’s credentials, validation studies and peer review satisfied Porter factors and Fitbit data was admissible
Miranda / custodial‑interrogation claim for hospital interview	The interview was noncustodial under totality of circumstances (conversational tone, defendant free to leave, detectives did not restrain or display weapons, defendant acquiesced and was not under formal arrest)	The interview was custodial (duration, hospital setting, defendant physically limited by treatment and distressed); Miranda warnings required	Court affirmed denial of suppression: majority of interview was noncustodial (reasonable person would feel free to leave); only statements after invocation in the third room were suppressed and were properly excluded

Key Cases Cited

State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693 (2002) (limits on asking a witness to characterize other witnesses as lying or wrong)
State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (1997) (Porter/Daubert gateway for scientific evidence admissibility)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory/impeachment material)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (1987) (factors for assessing whether prosecutorial impropriety deprived defendant of a fair trial)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (admissibility standard for expert/scientific testimony)
State v. Angel T., 292 Conn. 262 (2009) (limits on using evidence of pre‑investigation counsel and related argument to infer guilt)
State v. O'Brien‑Veader, 318 Conn. 514 (2015) (analysis of prosecutor’s compliance with evidentiary rulings and limits on cross‑examination)