179 Conn. App. 734
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- At 1:50 a.m., Trooper James Grimes found a stationary Volvo in a travel lane with brake lights on; when he parked behind it and activated lights, brake lights went off and parking lights came on. The defendant, sole occupant, rolled down the passenger window. Grimes smelled burnt marijuana and alcohol and observed slurred, glassy-eyed speech.
- The defendant failed preliminary coordination/alphabet tests, concealed a small pipe with marijuana residue, failed standardized field sobriety tests, and was arrested; he initially refused breath testing but later gave blood showing a .10 BAC and urine positive for marijuana.
- After release, the defendant devised a plan to fabricate a story that he had not been driving (or that the car was disabled) and solicited Knowles, Aston, and Petsa to corroborate; Petsa later refused and received Facebook messages from the defendant that included threats if she did not cooperate.
- The defendant was convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (and related counts) and two counts of witness tampering; he appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence as to operation and the admission/authentication of a printed Facebook message to Petsa.
- Trial evidence included the defendant’s written statement to police that he had “pulled over for safety,” testimony about his post-arrest attempts to procure false statements, Grimes’ observation of lights shifting (inferred gear/key manipulation), and Petsa’s testimony about receipt and context of Facebook messages; the court admitted a printed Facebook message after voir dire.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Smith's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence sufficed to show defendant "operated" a vehicle while intoxicated under § 14-227a(a)(1) | Written statement and other testimony imply he pulled over while driving; trooper saw lights shift consistent with key/gear manipulation; sobriety evidence showed intoxication; post-arrest witness-tampering shows consciousness of guilt | Car was inoperable before trooper arrived; no direct evidence vehicle was driven or in motion at encounter; operation not proved | Affirmed — circumstantial proof (statement, light/gear evidence, admissions, tampering conduct) supported finding of operation while intoxicated |
| Whether the court erred in admitting a printed Facebook message as evidence (authentication) | Petsa’s testimony about receipt, surrounding messages, distinctive style/content, and printing process sufficed to authenticate under Conn. Code Evid. §9-1 | State failed to prove the defendant authored the message; messages could have been sent by others or fabricated; printing from Word raises accuracy concerns | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; prima facie authentication met and any error was harmless because testimony about the messages was cumulative |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crespo, 317 Conn. 1 (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence) (Conn. 2015)
- State v. Haight, 279 Conn. 546 (operating can occur without vehicle motion) (Conn. 2006)
- State v. Sienkiewicz, 162 Conn. App. 407 (definition and proof of operation) (Conn. App. 2016)
- State v. Roth, 104 Conn. App. 248 (operation includes manipulating ignition or controls) (Conn. App. 2007)
- State v. Eleck, 130 Conn. App. 632 (authentication issues for social-media evidence) (Conn. App. 2011)
- State v. Polanco, 308 Conn. 242 (related to vacation of elevated BAC verdict under sentencing procedure) (Conn. 2013)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warning requirement) (U.S. 1966)