State v. Spring, 186 Conn. App. 197

Background

Christopher M. Spring was arrested after a physical altercation and, after booking, gave a written, three‑page statement at the Enfield police station during an approximately one‑hour custodial interrogation that was not electronically recorded.
The defendant had been Mirandized twice (at arrest and at the station), signed a notice of rights, made edits and initials to the written statement, and signed each page; he did not request counsel or to remain silent.
The state moved pretrial under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54‑1o to admit the nonrecorded statement, and the court held an evidentiary hearing on exceptions to the recording requirement.
The court found the recording requirement was not complied with (creating a presumption of inadmissibility), but determined under § 54‑1o(h) that the statement was voluntarily given and reliable under the totality of the circumstances and admitted it into evidence.
The jury convicted Spring of second‑degree strangulation and third‑degree assault; he appealed, arguing statutory (and purported constitutional) error in admitting his statement, an evidentiary‑argument claim about rebuttal remarks, and asking the court to adopt a supervisory rule requiring jury cautionary instructions when § 54‑1o recordings are absent.

Issues

Issue	State's (Plaintiff's) Argument	Spring's (Defendant's) Argument	Held
Admissibility under § 54‑1o(h): whether nonrecorded custodial statement can be admitted	The statement falls within § 54‑1o(h) exception: state proved by preponderance the statement was voluntary and reliable under the totality of circumstances	The statement was presumed inadmissible; state failed to show voluntariness and reliability (argues reliability requires independent corroboration)	Court affirmed admission: voluntariness and reliability proven; corroboration not required here and, in any event, there was independent corroboration
Constitutional claim: whether § 54‑1o creates a new constitutional right or otherwise raises constitutional infirmity	Admission is an evidentiary/statutory issue; no novel constitutional right exists; Miranda not invoked	Argues constitutional implications from failure to record and that statute creates constitutional protection	Rejected: claim is evidentiary; legislature (not constitution) governs recording requirement; defendant raised no Miranda violation
Prosecutor’s rebuttal remark that the statement was admitted "without objection"	Prosecutor’s remark was fair; any trial‑level rulings were within discretion	Court erred by overruling his interruption—harmful error claim	Not reviewed on appeal: defendant failed to brief harmfulness; claim deemed inadequately briefed and waived
Supervisory rule / jury instruction requiring caution when § 54‑1o not complied with	No statutory requirement for a cautionary instruction; supervisory power should not be used to craft this rule	Court should require a cautionary instruction or grant new trial because no cautionary instruction was given here	Declined: supervisory power not warranted; legislature chose not to require such instruction and defendant provided insufficient analysis to justify creating one

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (constitutional warnings required before custodial interrogation)
State v. Lockhart, 298 Conn. 537 (2010) (explaining limits of judicially imposed recording requirements and deferring to legislature)
State v. Edwards, 299 Conn. 419 (2011) (recording of interrogations not constitutionally required; legislative role)
State v. Ramos, 317 Conn. 19 (2015) (due process voluntariness factors and burden to prove voluntariness)
State v. Azukas, 278 Conn. 267 (2006) (voluntariness analysis must go beyond Miranda to totality of circumstances)
State v. Carrion, 313 Conn. 823 (2014) (coercive interrogation can undermine reliability)
State v. Pierre, 277 Conn. 42 (2006) (signing and reviewing a statement supports reliability)
State v. Flores, 319 Conn. 218 (2015) (reliability may be found even where independent corroboration is limited)