State v. Skok, 318 Conn. 699

Joanne A. Skok convicted by jury of first‑degree larceny and conspiracy for persuading elderly Jacqueline Becker to pay >$40,000 by inventing a scheme involving a fictional FBI contact, ‘‘Stu,’’ lawyers, and a mob boss.
Becker recorded multiple telephone calls with Skok after police coached Becker and set up recording equipment; recordings were admitted at trial without objection and played to the jury.
Skok appealed, arguing (1) the warrantless recordings of calls were unconstitutional under article first, § 7 of the Connecticut Constitution because only Becker consented, and (2) the trial court violated due process by failing sua sponte to inquire into Skok’s competency to stand trial (Pate v. Robinson) given health complaints.
The state conceded record adequacy and constitutional magnitude but argued no constitutional violation on the merits and that any error was not harmful.
The Connecticut Supreme Court applied the Geisler multifactor test and federal/state precedent and held (1) one‑party consent recordings do not violate article first, § 7 in these circumstances, and (2) there was no basis to require a competency inquiry because the record did not raise a reasonable doubt about Skok’s capacity to understand proceedings or assist counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless recordings of telephone calls made with consent of only one party violate article first, § 7	State: recordings lawful; no reasonable expectation of privacy when one party consents	Skok: she had a reasonable expectation of privacy and police needed a warrant	Court: No; one‑party consent recordings do not violate article first, § 7 here; Geisler factors and federal/sister‑state precedent support that rule
Whether trial court had duty to conduct sua sponte competency inquiry under Pate v. Robinson	N/A (state contested that competency was shown)	Skok: health, drowsiness, medications and counsel’s continuance request should have triggered inquiry	Court: No; evidence did not raise reasonable doubt about competency; physical ailments alone insufficient and medical note was not in record

Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747 (1952) (upheld undercover agent "wire" recordings with party’s connivance)
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966) (no Fourth Amendment protection for misplaced trust in accomplice)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (established subjective/objective reasonable expectation of privacy test)
United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971) (plurality: third‑party consent to recordings not protected by Fourth Amendment)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (due process requires inquiry when competency is sufficiently called into question)
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (clarified competency standards; defendant must understand proceedings and assist counsel)
State v. Grullon, 212 Conn. 195 (1989) (Conn. precedent upholding one‑party consent recordings under federal Fourth Amendment)
State v. Davis, 283 Conn. 280 (2007) (discussed reasonable expectation of privacy under article first, § 7)