129 Conn. App. 638
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Mangual was suspected of heroin trafficking from a North Street apartment after informant tips and three controlled purchases.
- Police obtained a search warrant and executed it on February 5, 2008, with seven officers inside and others outside.
- Defendant, within the apartment, identified drugs in a hairspray can, which contained 235 heroin packets; arrest followed.
- Incident to arrest, two $20 bills were recovered from Mangual, later traced to informants’ controlled buys.
- Pretrial motion to suppress the statement Mangual made during the warrant execution was heard October 20, 2009 and denied.
- On October 26, 2009, a jury found Mangual guilty on both counts and she was sentenced January 6, 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mangual was in custody requiring Miranda warnings during questioning. | State contends Mangual was not in custody. | Mangual argues she was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings. | No custody under the facts; Miranda not required. |
| Whether the court properly precluded third party culpability evidence. | State argues evidence was not directly connected to Flores and thus not admissible. | Mangual seeks judicial notice/evidence of Flores’s case to show third-party possession. | Record inadequate to review; affirmation of judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (U.S. 1981) (detention during execution of a warrant may be less intrusive than arrest)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (Miranda custody inquiry; free-to-leave not universally dispositive)
- State v. Mullins, 288 Conn. 345 (Conn. 2008) (requires custody and interrogation to trigger Miranda; defer to trial findings)
- State v. Pinder, 250 Conn. 385 (Conn. 1999) (two-pronged custody analysis; burden on defendant)
- State v. Britton, 283 Conn. 598 (Conn. 2007) (defines custody inquiry standard for Miranda in Connecticut)
- State v. Hasfal, 106 Conn.App. 199 (Conn. App. 2008) (free-to-leave test unsuitable for certain custodial inquiries; custody analysis required)
- State v. Hedge, 297 Conn. 621 (Conn. 2010) (third party culpability—need direct connection rather than bare suspicion)
- State v. Doyle, 104 Conn.App. 4 (Conn. 2007) (defer to trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous)