State v. Marsan, 192 Conn.App. 49

Defendant Kris Marsan was a home aide for elderly victim Eleanor Beliveau and had lawful, ongoing access to the victim’s house to perform chores and be paid through reimbursement forms.
The victim was temporarily at a rehabilitation facility after a fall; her son Ronald (with power of attorney) installed a hidden camera in the victim’s bedroom after noticing missing cash and jewelry.
Nanny-cam footage showed the defendant taking cash from an envelope and a tin; the son gave the video to police and filed a complaint.
Two detectives (Tackacs and McKeon) went to the defendant’s home; she invited them in, watched the video, immediately identified herself, and admitted taking money and some jewelry.
Defendant later returned $80 by money order and a pin (which the victim could not identify) at the police station.
Charged with two counts of burglary in the third degree and one count of larceny; convicted of one count of burglary in the third degree and the lesser included offense of larceny in the sixth degree. Trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements made at her home.

Issue	State's Argument	Marsan's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for burglary (whether defendant "remained unlawfully")	Larceny by a licensee implicitly revokes permission to remain; thus conduct supported burglary conviction	Defendant was licensed to be in the house and her privilege was never expressly or implicitly revoked; nonviolent theft from an unattended home does not meet the terror-based exception	Reversed as to burglary: insufficient evidence—license not implicitly revoked because no terrorizing conduct and victim was absent
Scope-of-consent theory to revoke license	Even if nonterrorizing, exceeding employment scope can implicitly revoke license	Scope-of-consent exception should not be extended to make everyday theft by a licensee a burglary	Court declined to extend scope-of-consent theory to these facts; denying such expansion
Motion to suppress — Miranda custodial-interrogation claim	(Implicitly) statements made while suspect watching video should have Miranda warnings if interrogation was custodial	Statements were made in her home during a noncustodial, consensual encounter; no restraints, brief duration, plainclothes officers invited in	Affirmed denial of suppression: not custodial under Miranda; reasonable person would feel free to leave

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (establishes custodial interrogation/Miranda warnings requirement)
State v. Allen, 216 Conn. 367 (discusses implicit withdrawal of consent where conduct is likely to terrorize occupants)
State v. Bharrat, 129 Conn. App. 1 (applies terror/implicit withdrawal doctrine where defendant’s violent conduct would terrorize occupant)
State v. Morocho, 93 Conn. App. 205 (same—license revoked where sexual assault/violent conduct occurred)
State v. Reyes, 19 Conn. App. 179 (license revoked where defendant drew a gun and terrorized occupant)
State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414 (presence as suspect does not automatically make an interview custodial)