344 Conn. 713
Conn.2022Background
- On Dec. 21, 2017 Adrian Flores and Benjamin Bellavance ingested cocaine, obtained box cutters, zip ties, duct tape, a machete and other tools, then forced entry into the basement bedroom of Flores’s drug dealer’s home; occupants confronted them and the pair fled. Both were later arrested; Flores had a box cutter and the duffel with tools was recovered nearby.
- Flores gave a written statement at the state police barracks that was transcribed and read back to him, but the audiovisual recording of his custodial interrogation was later recorded over and not preserved.
- Flores moved to suppress the statement under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54‑1o (the statute creating a presumption of inadmissibility for unrecorded custodial interrogations). After a suppression hearing the trial court found the failure to preserve was not in bad faith and that the statement was voluntary and reliable, and denied suppression.
- The prosecutor also introduced a written cooperation agreement between the state and Bellavance; defense objected that truthfulness provisions amounted to improper vouching. The court admitted the agreement in full.
- A jury convicted Flores of multiple counts (including attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, first‑degree burglary, home invasion, and conspiracy), the trial court later vacated some conspiracy counts, and Flores appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Flores's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flores’s written custodial statement was admissible under § 54‑1o despite no preserved recording | § 54‑1o(h) allows the state to overcome presumption of inadmissibility by proving by a preponderance that the statement was voluntarily given and reliable; record supports that showing and failure to preserve was not in bad faith | Failure to record/preserve mandates suppression; the statement was involuntary (affected by drugs, fatigue, limited English) and unreliable | Affirmed. Court found state met preponderance: Flores received and understood Miranda warnings, implicitly waived, was calm/cooperative, not coerced, and the statement was corroborated and reliable; no judicially imposed extra requirement that the state explain the recording loss. |
| Admissibility of cooperation agreement truthfulness provisions (improper vouching) | Agreement merely disclosed witness’s obligation to testify truthfully and consequences for lying; not a prosecutor verification of truth | Provisions (especially clause that the state would inform the sentencing court of the "truthfulness" of testimony) impermissibly vouched for credibility and suggested prosecutor could verify/monitor truthfulness | Affirmed in part. Court held provisions requiring truthfulness and warning about perjury were admissible; the clause saying the state would report the nature/extent/value/"truthfulness" to the sentencing court was close to improper vouching and should be avoided or redacted in future, but admission here was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempt to commit robbery in the first degree | Evidence (planning, procurement of weapons, kicking in door, possession/holding of a cutting instrument, statements about using force/tie‑ups) showed intent to commit larceny and a substantial step toward using/threatening force | Argues state failed to prove intent to use threatened force and no use/threat of a dangerous instrument occurred (box cutter kept in pocket) | Affirmed. Court explained intent element is intent to commit larceny (not intent to use force); Flores’s conduct supported a substantial step toward using/threatening the box cutter. |
| Sufficiency for first‑degree burglary and conspiracy to commit home invasion (predicated on robbery) | Circumstances (armed with box cutter, requested weapons, kicked in door knowing someone was home, co‑conspirator’s testimony about tying up and using force) supported that box cutter was a dangerous instrument and that Flores agreed to use force | Argues box cutter was innocuous (kept in pocket) and there was no agreement to use force | Affirmed. Jury reasonably found Flores was armed with a dangerous instrument under the circumstances and that he had the specific intent required for conspiracy to commit home invasion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warning and waiver principles governing custodial interrogation)
- State v. Christopher S., 338 Conn. 255 (2021) (interpreting § 54‑1o; voluntariness and reliability standard and preponderance burden)
- Marquez v. Commissioner of Correction, 330 Conn. 575 (2019) (discussing written cooperation agreements and jury assessment of cooperating‑witness incentives)
- United States v. Bowie, 892 F.2d 1494 (10th Cir. 1989) (truthfulness provisions may explain witness duties and consequences; limits on prosecutor vouching)
- United States v. Certified Environmental Services, Inc., 753 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2014) (holding bolstering portions of cooperation agreements inappropriate on direct exam until credibility is attacked)