State v. Reilly
61 A.3d 598
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant Kenneth Reilly was convicted at a jury trial of three counts of risk of injury to, or impairing, the morals of a child under General Statutes § 53-21(a)(2).
- Prior to trial, Reilly moved to suppress statements given to Waterbury police, alleging Miranda violations and involuntary confession.
- Detective Ruda Pratt testified at suppression that she read him a Miranda waiver form and he agreed to waive rights; a typed statement was created contemporaneously.
- Sgt. Michael Ponzillo testified he verified the statement, had the defendant sign and initial it, and notarized it; the printed statement showed an 11:12 a.m. end time, which was challenged as erroneous.
- During suppression, the defendant testified the waiver and statements were not contemporaneous and that Pratt manipulated or fabricated the statement; Pratt and Ponzillo offered contrary, more credible testimony at trial.
- A mistrial motion based on these inconsistencies was denied; the court issued a curative spoliation instruction to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of the mistrial was an abuse of discretion | Reilly argues inconsistent police testimony tainted the suppression hearing and trial | Reilly contends the inconsistencies compromised credibility and fairness | No abuse; court properly denied mistrial and issued curative spoliation instruction |
| Whether the denial of the mistrial foreclosed an unpreserved involuntary confession claim | Reilly asserts the confession was involuntary and admitted improperly | State failed to preserve this argument for review | Unreviewed; the claim was unpreserved and not reached under practice rules |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (Conn. 2012) (mistrial and discretionary review standards; curative measures preferred when possible)
- State v. Sewell, 95 Conn. App. 815 (Conn. App. 2006) (appellate review of mistrial denials; abuse of discretion)
- State v. Owens, 63 Conn. App. 245 (Conn. App. 2001) (credibility issues resolved by jury weighing testimony)
- Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 236 Conn. 769 (Conn. 1996) (civil spoliation rule; discretion to balance materiality and prejudice in criminal context)
- State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 (Conn. 1995) (balancing test for spoliation remedies in criminal cases)