State v. Donald, 157 A.3d 1134

On Dec. 22, 2011, two victims were shot during a robbery at Ulerio Grocery in Hartford; surveillance video captured the crime.
Detectives Reginald Early and Kevin Salkeld met defendant Ravon Donald in Keney Park on Jan. 6, 2012; defendant voluntarily got into an unmarked police car and agreed to go to the station on an outstanding warrant and understood he was under arrest.
While waiting at the park, Early asked if the defendant knew anything about the Homestead Avenue robbery; the defendant said he "knew about that." Detectives asked no further questions at the park.
At the station the defendant was processed, given Miranda warnings, executed a waiver, and after several hours gave a detailed oral confession that was transcribed and later signed.
The defendant moved to suppress his statements, arguing the unwarned park question was custodial interrogation and tainted the later warned confession; the trial court denied the motion, a jury convicted, and the sentence was imposed.

Issue	State's Argument	Donald's Argument	Held
Whether the question at Keney Park constituted custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings	The park question was not interrogation (or alternatively record is inadequate)	The brief unwarned question was interrogation and Miranda should have been given before any custodial questioning	Court assumed arguendo it might be interrogation but declined to decide; did not reverse on this ground
Whether the later warned confession at the station was admissible despite the earlier unwarned statement	The postwarning interrogation was sufficiently attenuated and warnings effective; confession voluntary	The station interrogation was continuous with the park question so warnings were ineffective; confession should be suppressed	Held admissible: warnings were effective and waiver voluntary under Elstad-type analysis
Whether the record was adequate for appellate review	Record adequate because material facts undisputed and issue reviewed plenarily	Record inadequate because trial court gave no signed or written memorandum	Court held record adequate for review given undisputed facts and plenary legal question
Whether the defendant’s waiver and signed statement were voluntary	Waiver and confession voluntary; no coercion; defendant demonstrated understanding and choice	Waiver coerced/tainted by initial unwarned admission and relationship with detective	Held state met burden by preponderance; waiver voluntary and confession admissible

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (warnings required before custodial interrogation)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (an unwarned voluntary admission does not necessarily taint a subsequent warned confession)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (midstream warnings may be ineffective when interrogation is part of a deliberate two-step strategy)
State v. Gonzalez, 302 Conn. 287 (Conn. 2011) (standards for reviewing motions to suppress and harmless-error principles)