163 Conn.App. 410
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- On May 19, 2012, Pasquale Raffone was arrested after a Home Depot employee, Luis Gonzalez, observed him leave the store with two skylight windows without paying; Raffone later pleaded nolo contendere to the larceny charge.
- The state commenced an in rem forfeiture action under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-33g seeking forfeiture of Raffone’s 2002 Ford F-250 as an instrumentality of the larceny.
- At the August 2014 hearing, testimony established (1) Gonzalez saw Raffone put windows into a red truck and use a fraudulent receipt, (2) police obtained consent to retrieve ID from the truck and detected a strong odor of marijuana, and (3) officers conducted an inventory/tow and searched the truck (only leafy residue found).
- The trial court found Raffone committed larceny and that the truck was used to complete the offense, concluding the vehicle was a nuisance under the in rem statute and ordering forfeiture to the Fairfield Police Department.
- Raffone (self-represented) appealed raising multiple claims including discovery violations, denial of subpoenas/witnesses, improper sequestration, evidentiary/credibility errors, and unlawful search/seizure.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, rejecting most claims as unreviewable for lack of an adequate record or because they challenged credibility; it held the seizure/search and resulting in rem forfeiture were lawful under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Raffone) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to comply with discovery order | Record does not show any discovery order; inadequate record to review | Trial court ignored a 2012 discovery order and state failed to comply | Not reviewable—defendant failed to provide adequate record/documentation |
| Denial of subpoenas / right to call witnesses | No written application for subpoenas in record; inadequate record | Court refused to review subpoenas and prevented Raffone from calling witnesses | Not reviewable—insufficient record and Practice Book noncompliance |
| Improper sequestration of witnesses | No testimony detailing sequestration; defendant did not object at trial | Witnesses improperly allowed to be present after testifying | Not reviewable—no contemporaneous objection and inadequate record |
| Credibility of key witnesses (Gonzalez, Newkirchen) | Court credited witness testimony; credibility determinations are for the trier of fact | Testimony was false, hearsay, contradicted prior statements; court erred in crediting it | Rejected—appellate court will not reweigh credibility; findings stand |
| Search/seizure and vehicle forfeiture under § 54-33g | Warrant not required; search/seizure lawful (consent, odor, inventory/tow, search-incident/arrest exceptions) and vehicle was instrumentality | Seizure/search unconstitutional without warrant; no probable cause to search or to seize vehicle for forfeiture | Rejected—the search/seizure was lawful under established exceptions and § 54-33g applies to property seized incident to lawful arrest/search; forfeiture affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Connelly, 194 Conn. 589 (explaining in rem forfeiture focuses on property use, not owner's guilt)
- State v. One 1977 Buick Automobile, 196 Conn. 471 (forfeiture statute applies where property seized in connection with arrest)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory searches of towed vehicles allowed without warrant)
- State v. Andrews, 313 Conn. 266 (appellate courts defer to trial court on witness credibility)
- State v. Thomas, 98 Conn. App. 542 (recognized exceptions to warrant requirement for vehicle searches: probable cause, plain view, search incident to arrest)