140 Conn. App. 299
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant Mullien appeals after a jury conviction for risk of injury to a child and second-degree assault.
- He challenged suppression of statements and physical evidence obtained during a home search.
- The court denied suppression; the state granted an amendment to the information after trial began.
- The timeline relates to alleged abuse of H in May 2008, with investigation spanning Minnesota and Connecticut.
- Detectives obtained written and Miranda-waived statements; search was conducted with defendant’s consent.
- The court concluded consent was voluntary and the amendment to the information was permissible and nonprejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether suppression was correct for consent to search | Mullien—consent not voluntary, tainted by police conduct | Mullien—consent was coerced by implied threat to obtain warrant | Consent voluntary; search valid. |
| Whether amendment of information after trial began was proper | State—good cause, no new offenses, no prejudice | Mullien—prejudices rights and notice; timeframe expanded | Amendment proper; no substantial prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martinez, 49 Conn. App. 738 (Conn. App. 1998) (standard for voluntariness of consent; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Brunetti, 279 Conn. 39 (Conn. 2006) (police stay on premises after consent; standard practice notice)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (Supreme Court 1984) (securing dwelling to prevent destruction while warrant sought is reasonable)
- State v. Tanzella, 226 Conn. 601 (Conn. 1993) (three-prong test for post-commencement amendments; good cause, no new offense, no prejudice)
- State v. Grant, 83 Conn. App. 90 (Conn. App. 2004) (amendment to reflect victim testimony permitted)
- State v. Wilson F., 77 Conn. App. 405 (Conn. App. 2003) (good cause for amendment when victim’s age/date testimony affects timing)
- Dotson v. Warden, 175 Conn. 614 (Conn. 1978) (coerciveness of threats to obtain consent—distinction to avoid coercion)
- Rushton, 264 Mont. 248 (Mont. 1994) (distinguishes voluntariness; misrepresentations differing from present case)