State v. Knox, 201 Conn.App. 457

Background:

Late-night altercation outside Barley Corn Cafe: defendant drew a handgun, shot Crespo, who returned fire and later died; defendant fled the scene with a gun.
Police recovered the decedent’s gun from a third party; ballistics showed two different guns were fired.
Defendant was arrested ~one month later; recorded interviews on Nov 20 (initial interview where he invoked counsel) and Nov 21 (defendant requested to speak to the detective and, after Miranda warnings, waived rights and made inculpatory admissions).
At trial the parties stipulated the defendant had a prior felony conviction; the court limited that evidence’s use to proving the firearm-possession element.
Jury convicted the defendant of criminal possession of a firearm and tampering with physical evidence; the trial court granted a post-verdict judgment of acquittal as to tampering for insufficient evidence of intent to impair an investigation; the state appealed that acquittal; defendant appealed admission of his Nov 21 statements and the court’s editing of the interview recording.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for tampering with physical evidence (§ 53a-155)	Flight with gun plus prior felony supports inference he removed the gun to impair availability in an investigation	No evidence of intent to impair; prior conviction was admitted only for limited purpose and cannot be used to infer tampering intent	Trial court properly granted judgment of acquittal; state presented insufficient evidence of intent to impair and prior conviction was limited-purpose evidence
Whether Nov 21 statements should be excluded under Purcell (ambiguous request for counsel)	Police acted properly because defendant reinitiated contact and waived Miranda; his comment about a lawyer not visiting was not an invocation	His remark that "the lawyer ain’t come see me" was an equivocal/ambiguous request triggering the stop-and-clarify rule under Purcell	Court held the remark was not an ambiguous invocation; a reasonable officer would not construe it as a request for counsel, so statements were admissible
Admission of edited interview excerpt (exhibit 62A) vs. excluded contextual portions under Conn. Code Evid. §1-5	State: short clip showing defendant identified himself in a surveillance photo is admissible and not misleading	Defense: excluding the portion where he identifies a different man as the shooter distorts context and misleads the jury	Trial court did not abuse discretion: the additional excerpt would not have altered the meaning of the defendant’s self-identification, so §1-5 did not require admission
Constitutional claims (due process / right to present a defense) based on selective admission of interview	State: evidentiary ruling lawful; no constitutional violation given proper §1-5 analysis	Defense: selective admission created misleading impression and deprived him of a complete defense	Court found no constitutional violation after concluding evidentiary rulings were proper

Key Cases Cited

State v. Purcell, 331 Conn. 318 (Conn. 2019) (Connecticut stop-and-clarify rule for ambiguous requests for counsel under state constitution)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (federal standard: request for counsel must be unambiguous to require cessation of questioning)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (once counsel is requested, interrogation must cease unless suspect initiates further communication)
State v. Jordan, 314 Conn. 354 (Conn. 2014) (tampering requires defendant believed an investigation or proceeding was probable)
State v. Foreshaw, 214 Conn. 540 (Conn. 1990) (defendant’s admission she discarded a gun to avoid being caught supported tampering intent)
State v. Norman P., 329 Conn. 440 (Conn. 2018) (analysis of context and §1-5 remainder rule for recorded statements)
State v. Castonguay, 218 Conn. 486 (Conn. 1991) (§1-5 ensures statements placed in evidence are not taken out of context)