199 Conn.App. 187
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- On April 6, 2015, Sumler and two companions left Eddy’s (a grocery) and then robbed Pay Rite convenience store; surveillance footage shows Sumler and a co‑actor; the store clerk was shot and killed.
- Police obtained and Judge Vitale signed a search warrant for Sumler’s home and later an arrest warrant charging him with robbery and murder. Sumler was arrested on a probation‑violation warrant.
- Prior to trial Sumler moved in limine to exclude testimony from his former probation officer, Jayme DeNardis, who had identified him in Eddy’s surveillance footage; he also moved to suppress two statements made during transport to the station. Both motions were denied.
- Sumler was tried (jury) on murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and carrying a pistol without a permit; a separate bench trial was held on criminal possession of a pistol. He was convicted and sentenced to an effective 90‑year term; he appealed.
- On appeal Sumler argued (1) Judge Vitale should have recused because he signed the warrants, (2) DeNardis’s identification was improper lay opinion on the ultimate issue, and (3) transport‑statements should have been suppressed under Miranda. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Sumler's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial recusal after judge signed search/arrest warrants | Denial of recusal did not violate due process; no actual judicial bias shown; no per se rule forbids a judge who issued warrants from later presiding | Judge’s signing of warrants created an appearance of impropriety and required recusal (Golding/plain error or Code of Judicial Conduct) | Affirmed: claim unpreserved and fails Golding (no actual bias). No plain error; issuance of warrants alone does not require recusal under existing rules/case law. |
| Admission of probation officer’s identification of Sumler in Eddy’s surveillance video | DeNardis’s identification is admissible lay testimony about presence in a separate location; it does not render a legal opinion on guilt at Pay Rite | Identification is an impermissible opinion on the ultimate issue (identity/culpability) under State v. Finan | Affirmed: testimony was not an opinion on the ultimate issue because the Eddy’s footage depicted a different location and did not directly decide guilt for the Pay Rite crime. |
| Suppression of statements made during transport to station ("I’m infatuated with guns" / "I always wanted to be a bank robber") | Statements admissible because officer’s questions were conversational and not reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses (no custodial interrogation for Miranda) | Statements were made in custody before Miranda warnings and therefore must be suppressed | Affirmed: trial court correctly found no custodial interrogation—questions were casual, not designed or reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (establishes test for unpreserved constitutional claims reviewed on appeal)
- Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905 (judicial disqualification requires probability of actual bias intolerable under due process)
- State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 572 (mere appearance of bias insufficient for due process recusal claim)
- State v. Rizzo, 303 Conn. 71 (limits and exceptions when a judge’s prior participation bars later adjudication)
- State v. Finan, 275 Conn. 60 (police officers’ identifications from crime‑scene footage can improperly state an opinion on the ultimate issue)
- State v. Holley, 160 Conn. App. 578 (distinguishing identifications from footage of a different location—admissible lay ID did not decide guilt)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation requires warnings before admissibility of statements)
- State v. Ramos, 317 Conn. 19 (standard of review and framework for determining custodial interrogation)
- State v. Smith, 321 Conn. 278 (Miranda interrogation analysis: objective test whether officer conduct was reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)