State v. Mucha, 2012 WL 3000683

Trooper Burke investigates an accident where Moore rear-ended Mucha’s parked car; Mucha shows signs of intoxication and is arrested after field sobriety tests.
Mucha is charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of § 14-227a(a)(1).
At the state police barracks, Mucha receives Miranda warnings and refuses a Breathalyzer test.
During trial, a Waterbury newspaper article about the case is published; defense moves to voir dire jurors about exposure, court denies but later admonishes jurors to avoid media.
The trial court later rules on suppression and custody issues, ultimately finding Mucha was not in custody and his statements at the scene were admissible as noncustodial.
The jury convicts Mucha; the trial court imposes a three-year sentence with eighteen months’ execution and three years’ probation; Mucha appeals on voir dire, suppression, and prosecutorial improprieties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror exposure to publicity	Mucha argues jurors read the article tainting the verdict.	Mucha contends the court should have canvassed jurors about exposure.	No abuse; no showing any juror read the article; discretionary not to canvass.
Custody and suppression of statements at scene	Statements were obtained unlawfully before Miranda warnings; custodial interrogation.	On-scene questioning was custodial/compelled; Miranda applies.	Not in custody; routine on-scene questioning; statements admissible; no Miranda violation.
Prosecutorial improprieties during rebuttal	Misstatements and inflammatory remarks unfairly tinted the trial.	Prosecutor’s remarks deprived him of due process.	Some remarks improper but not enough to deny due process; curative instructions and strong State case mitigated impact.
Prosecutor’s reference to sobriety in argument	Argument framed issue as sobriety; could misstate legal standard.	This mischaracterizes law and prejudices the jury.	Not improper when viewed in context; jury instructed properly; no due process violation.
Trooper witness characterization	Prosecutor portrayed a trooper as more credible via references to training.	Such characterization improperly inflates credibility.	Curative instruction given; not error requiring reversal.

State v. Merriam, 264 Conn. 617 (2003) (prejudicial publicity and juror exposure factors governing canvass necessity)
Kervick v. Silver Hill Hospital, 128 Conn. App. 341 (2011) (limits on need to canvass for exposure when pretrial publicity is extensive and inflammatory)
State v. Copas, 252 Conn. 318 (2000) (jury exposure presumed when instructed to avoid media; discretion in canvass must be balanced)
State v. Beliveau, 52 Conn. App. 475 (1999) (standards for reviewing suppression findings and custody determinations)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 540 (1987) (factors for evaluating prosecutorial impropriety and its impact on fair trial)