State v. Monahan
125 Conn. App. 113
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- On December 19, 2007, at about 7 p.m., Kilkenny observed a vehicle driven by Monahan fail to stay in its lane and nearly collide with other cars on River Road, Wilton.
- Kilkenny followed Monahan for about half a mile, noting repeated right curb contacts and crossings into oncoming lanes, prompting him to call 911.
- Police arrived; officers detected a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and a wine-like stain on Monahan's shirt; officers had him exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests.
- Monahan failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and refused to perform two other standardized field sobriety tests; he was arrested and transported to the police department.
- A search of Monahan's car revealed an unopened four-pack of merlot; at the station, he refused a Breathalyzer test after being advised of rights under Miranda and implied-consent law.
- Monahan admitted consuming two or three drinks around 6 p.m.; the state later charged him with violations of § 14-227a(a)(1) and (g), with a jury convicting on the offense and a related conviction entered later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State | Monahan | Evidence supported guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Prosecutorial impropriety in closing | State | Monahan | Claim inadequately briefed; reviewed and rejected |
| Admission of pre-arrest field sobriety evidence | State | Monahan | Unpreserved; Golding/plain-error review declined |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gordon, 84 Conn.App. 519 (2004) (elements of driving under influence under § 14-227a(a)(1))
- State v. Bereis, 117 Conn.App. 360 (2009) (sufficiency review in DUI cases; circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Sivri, 231 Conn. 115 (1994) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency; circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Sinclair, 197 Conn. 574 (1985) (two-step sufficiency framework; cumulative evidence)
- State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 (2010) (propriety and due process analysis for prosecutorial conduct)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (test for constitutional error not preserved at trial)
- Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) ( Fifth Amendment applies to compelled testimonial communications)