State v. Hodkoski, 146 Conn. App. 701

Defendant Mark Hodkoski was convicted after a jury trial of attempted evasion of responsibility in a motor vehicle accident and of operation under the influence as a third or subsequent offender.
Feb. 26, 2010, Hodkoski, driving his son’s pickup on Main Street in Terryville, crashed into a tree and then attempted to drive away.
Officer Surprenant observed intoxication indicators and smelled alcohol and marijuana; Hodkoski admitted two beers.
At the station, Hodkoski was advised of Miranda rights during processing for DUI and signed forms; he refused a Breathalyzer.
A separate trial on the “part B” prior-offender allegations established Hodkoski’s prior DUI convictions through a witness and certified records.
The trial court denied suppression of postarrest statements, and the jury later found Hodkoski guilty on the charged counts; on appeal, the conviction was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether postarrest statements were admissible after proper Miranda waiver	Hodkoski argues no Miranda warnings were given before custodial questioning	State contends Miranda rights were given prior to questioning on A-44 forms	Waiver adequately supported; statements admitted
Whether proof of damage to property supported evasion conviction	State asserts bark removal from the tree constituted damage to property	Humphrey controls; bark damage may be insufficient to prove damage	Sufficient evidence of damage to property; bark removal satisfied §14-224(b) damage element
Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove third or subsequent DUI offender status	State offered Therriault’s testimony and certified records tying defendant to multiple prior DUIs	Name matches alone are insufficient; rely on identity evidence	Evidence, including Therriault’s identification and multiple records, supported third/offender status

State v. Canady, 297 Conn. 322, 998 A.2d 1135 (2010) (custody and interrogation require Miranda warnings; waiver analysis proper)
State v. Chung, 202 Conn. 39, 519 A.2d 1175 (1987) (standard for determining validity of waiver of rights under intoxication evidence)
State v. Humphrey, 22 Conn. Supp. 317, 171 A.2d 201 (1961) (paint transfer as potential damage; sufficiency inquiry on causation of damage)
State v. Herbst, 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 236, 197 A.2d 550 (1963) (damage to property immaterial to evasion duties when damage exists)
State v. Gereg, 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 6, 261 A.2d 867 (1969) (damage amount not required to prove evasion duties)
State v. Windley, (unpublished) 95 Conn. App. 62, 895 A.2d 270 (2006) (multiple identifiers can establish identity when records are not perfect)