128 Conn. App. 633
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant David S. Heck was convicted after a jury trial of burglary in the third degree, larceny in the second degree, and criminal mischief in the first degree for a Suffield town hall burglary on August 29, 2007.
- The Suffield burglary involved prying a basement window, entering the building without an alarm, breaking into a cash safe and cash register, and causing roughly $3,449 in damage to cabinets and papers, with $6,367.53 in cash and checks taken.
- No eyewitnesses or physical evidence linked Heck to the Suffield burglary at the scene.
- Hearing testimony established that, on September 7, 2007, Hillsborough, New Hampshire police apprehended Heck for burglaries at two New Hampshire town halls, aided by a GPS device in his rented pickup truck and other documentary items.
- A Hillsborough police officer observed Heck’s vehicle, located a GPS device on the dashboard, and used it to identify recent addresses including the Suffield and Hillsborough town halls; a driver’s license and business card bearing Heck’s name were found in the truck.
- Heck subsequently turned himself in, admitting involvement in the Hillsborough and Windsor burglaries due to financial hardship; the trial court admitted NH burglary evidence, the GPS-device evidence, and later Heck’s statements made in New Hampshire.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NH burglary evidence was admissible as part of a common scheme | State contends NH burglaries show common scheme/method. | Heck argues evidence prejudicial and not part of a single plan. | Admissible; probative of common scheme, not unduly prejudicial. |
| Whether the NH burglaries prove sufficient evidence of charged offenses | State argues evidence completes the overall proof of planned conduct. | Heck contends NH evidence is unconnected and insufficient to support convictions. | Evidence supports convictions; not insufficient. |
| Whether GPS-device evidence from Heck's rented truck was properly admitted | State shows inevitable discovery or lawful access via inventory would have revealed data. | Heck argues GPS data was illegally obtained and improperly admitted. | Admissible; inevitable discovery applies; lawful discovery would have occurred. |
| Whether statements made in New Hampshire were properly admitted | State maintains Miranda warnings were given and waived; admission lawful. | Boyd analysis should apply New Hampshire law to determine admissibility. | Statements properly admitted; Boyd does not control; Miranda waiver valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dougherty, 123 Conn.App. 872 (Conn. App. 2010) (common scheme vs. signature in admissibility of uncharged misconduct)
- State v. Greene, 209 Conn. 458 (Conn. 1988) (mobility of robberies; proximity in time/place supports common scheme)
- State v. McClelland, 113 Conn.App. 142 (Conn. App. 2009) (undue prejudicial impact of prior misconduct evidence considerations)
- State v. Vallejo, 102 Conn.App. 628 (Conn. App. 2007) (inevitable discovery rule applicability)
- State v. Boyd, 295 Conn. 707 (Conn. 2010) (foreign evidence admissibility when lawfully obtained vs. forum state)